National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, 22848-22948 [2012-6421]

Download as PDF 22848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037; FRL–9636–2] RIN 2060–AN33 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The EPA is promulgating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production. The final rules establish emission standards that apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, for hazardous air pollutants from polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production located at major and area sources. The final rules include requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards, including monitoring provisions and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. SUMMARY: The final rules are effective on April 17, 2012. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 17, 2012. DATES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ADDRESSES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Ms. Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 4607; Fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document. TEQ toxic equivalent THC total hydrocarbon tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper predictive limit VACO vinyl acetate copolymer VCM vinyl chloride monomer VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compound WWW World Wide Web CAA Clean Air Act CDD/CDF chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system DCS distributed control system dscm dry standard cubic meter EDC ethylene dichloride ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technologies or management practices HMW high molecular weight HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP ICR information collection request LAER lowest achievable emission rate LDAR leak detection and repair LMW low molecular weight LOQ limit of quantitation MACT maximum achievable control technology MDL method detection levels MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter NOX nitrogen oxide NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget POD point of determination POG point of generation ppbv parts per billion by volume ppbw parts per billion by weight ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume ppmw parts per million by weight PQL practical quantitation limit PRD pressure relief device psia pounds per square inch absolute PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers PVCPU PVC production process unit RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDL representative method detection level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RL reporting limit SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SO2 sulfur dioxide TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document? C. Judicial Review II. Background Information for This Final Rule A. What is the statutory authority for the final PVC rules? B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA’s Response III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal A. Applicability B. Subcategories C. Emission Standards D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and Reporting E. Area Source Requirements F. New and Revised Definitions IV. Summary of the Final Rules A. What is the affected source? B. When must I comply with the major and area source standards? C. What is the relationship between the final rule for major sources and the existing 40 CFR part 61, subpart F standards? D. Are there subcategories for major sources? E. What emission standards must I meet for major sources? F. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for major sources? G. What are the performance testing requirements for batch process operations at major sources? H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements at major sources? I. What are the requirements for area sources? J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements? V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Rule A. Affected Source B. Overlapping Rules C. Pollutants Regulated D. Subcategories E. MACT Floor Calculation F. Emission Source Requirements G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and Reporting H. Area Sources I. Definitions J. Cost and Emission Impacts K. Economic Impacts L. Affirmative Defense M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rule A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy impacts? D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 22849 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The final rules establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for polyvinyl chloride and copolymer (PVC) production. The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these standards include the following: Category NAICS a Code Examples of potentially regulated entities Polyvinyl chloride resins manufacturing ... 325211 Facilities that polymerize vinyl chloride monomer to produce polyvinyl chloride and/ or copolymers products. a North American Industry Classification System. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production) and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources). A polyvinyl chloride and copolymer production facility is not subject to either subpart if it is a research and development facility, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this final action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/ ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 18, 2012. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the contact listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 II. Background Information for This Final Rule A. What is the statutory authority for the final PVC rules? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to establish NESHAP for source categories and subcategories of both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a HAP-emitting stationary source that is not a major source. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources, based on performance of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the bestperforming five sources for source categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This minimum level of stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ control options. When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and non-air E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations quality health and environmental impacts when doing so. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ‘‘which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional information on generally available control technology (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101–228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as: * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the analogous source category to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source categories at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to ‘‘review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.’’ B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA’s Response On July 10, 2002, the EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and existing PVC production facilities that are located at major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart J (67 FR 45886, July 10, 2002) (referred to as the ‘‘part 63 NESHAP’’). In that rulemaking, the EPA determined that compliance with the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAP (40 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 CFR part 61, subpart F) (referred to as the ‘‘part 61 NESHAP’’) reflected the application of MACT; thus, satisfying CAA section 112(d), with the exception of adding requirements for equipment leaks at new sources. In the part 63 NESHAP, the EPA regulated vinyl chloride emissions as a surrogate for all HAP emitted from PVC production. For equipment leaks, the part 63 NESHAP required that new sources comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards. In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (DC Cir. 2004), the petitioners argued that the EPA failed to set emission standards for all HAP emitted by PVC plants. The EPA had set emission standards for vinyl chloride as a surrogate for the remaining HAP because it was the predominant HAP used and emitted at PVC plants. The Court ruled that the EPA did not adequately explain the basis for its decision to use vinyl chloride as a surrogate for other HAP. The Court ‘‘vacated and remanded [the rule in its entirety] to the agency for it to reconsider or properly explain its methodology for regulating [HAP] emitted in PVC production other than vinyl chloride by use of a surrogate.’’ 370 F.3d at 1243. This rule promulgates NESHAP for PVC production at major sources in response to the remand and in accordance with section 112 of the CAA. On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2930), the EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and existing PVC production area sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD. Subpart DDDDDD was based on GACT and required area sources to meet the requirements in the existing part 61 NESHAP. The part 61 NESHAP requirements address only vinyl chloride emissions. In this rulemaking, we are fulfilling our obligation under CAA section 112(d)(6) to review and revise, as necessary, the PVC production area source standards. We coordinated our CAA 112(d)(6) review of the area source standards with the development of major source MACT standards in response to the Court remand. III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal The EPA received over 39 public comment letters on the proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted two public hearings to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. After consideration of public comments and new data received, the EPA is making several changes to the standards. Following are the major changes to the standards since PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the proposal. The rationale for these and other significant changes can be found in section V of this preamble or in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production: Summary of Public Comments and Responses, in the PVC docket (EPA– HQ–OAR–2002–0037). A. Applicability The definition of affected source was changed to clarify the requirements for existing and new affected sources. In the proposed rule, an affected source was defined as each individual PVC production process unit (PVCPU) and a new affected source was a PVCPU for which construction commenced on or after May 20, 2011, at a major or area source. A PVCPU was defined to include all equipment connected by shared piping, including equipment typically shared by multiple PVCPU, such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment systems. In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater, and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source is defined as follows: • All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed at a Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to the rule proposal but has undergone process changes to start producing PVC. • A reconstructed affected source. As an example, if an existing PVC plant adds a new PVCPU, the new PVCPU and the associated emission control devices and wastewater treatment processes would be subject to the existing source NESHAP limits, unless it qualifies as a reconstructed source. A newly constructed PVCPU would be subject to the new source requirements in the final rules only if it was constructed at a Greenfield site or at a site that had not previously produced PVC prior to the date of proposal of this rule (May 20, 2011) or if it qualifies as a reconstructed source. B. Subcategories At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. In the final rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only and PVCcombined. PVC-only process vents comprise process vent streams that E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations originate solely from a PVCPU. PVCcombined process vents comprise process vent streams that originate from a PVCPU and that are combined or are co-controlled with process vent streams that originate from other source categories such as ethylene dichloride (EDC) or vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) production processes. The change to subcategories was based on our review of comments, further review of the originally submitted test data, and our review of additional data submitted by industry after proposal. We determined that there are significant differences between the emission profiles of process vents that originate solely from a PVCPU and the emission profiles of process vents that originate from a PVCPU and are combined with process vents from other source categories prior to control. Further discussion of the differences between PVC-only and PVCcombined process vent streams is provided in section V.D of this preamble, and data showing the differences is provided in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. A facility subject to the PVCcombined limits that no longer combines vent streams from other source categories, or a facility that is subject to the PVC-only limits that subsequently combines vent streams from other source categories, is subject to the process change requirements in 40 CFR 63.11896 of the final rule. Routine and maintenance shutdowns that cause temporary cessation of the vent stream flow from other source categories are not subject to the process change requirements. At proposal, we subcategorized stripped resins into three subcategories: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin and (3) all other resin. For the final rule, we subcategorized stripped resins into five subcategories: (1) Suspension resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin, (4) bulk resin and (5) copolymer resin. The change to subcategories was made based on our review of comments and additional data submitted by the industry (see section V.D of this preamble for more discussion of our response to these and other public comments) after proposal. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 We determined that there are significant differences in the concentrations of vinyl chloride and organic HAP that remain in the various types of resin following stripping due to differing process equipment and raw materials that are used to produce the varying types of resins, such that further subcategorization of stripped resin was warranted. C. Emission Standards In the final rule, we revised the emission limits based on additional data received and the additional subcategories for process vents and stripped resins. The emission limit changes are discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble and documented in the technical memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. We also made revisions to the requirements for process wastewater, heat exchange systems, equipment leaks and other emission sources as discussed below. We considered all the data regarding the PVC source category available to the agency in establishing the emission limits presented in Tables 1 through 8 below for process vents, stripped resins, and process wastewater. In reviewing those data, we found that the HAP emitted from the PVC source category are organic HAP (including vinyl chloride and chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (CDD/CDF)) and hydrogen chloride (HCl). We did not identify in the data any inorganic HAP, metal HAP, or any acid gases other than HCl, which is also a surrogate for chlorine gas. In setting limits for all HAP emitted at PVC major sources, we established total hydrocarbons (THC) limits as a surrogate for organic HAP from process vents, along with limits for HCl as a surrogate for all acid gas HAP and chlorine gas, vinyl chloride, and CDD/CDF. Although vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are organic HAP, we established separate limits for these pollutants. Vinyl chloride is the primary ingredient in PVC production and is present at all emission points. Vinyl chloride, which is also an urban HAP, is already regulated at PVC facilities under the part 61 NESHAP. However, we are not setting vinyl chloride limits as a surrogate for other HAP. The CDD/ PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22851 CDF emissions are generated from combustion control of organic HAP from process vents (as is HCl), and CDD/CDF are emitted at levels that are orders of magnitude lower than other organic HAP, thus requiring a separate test method to be detected and measured. We identified in the data for stripped resins and process wastewater only organic HAP (including vinyl chloride). For these emission sources, we are establishing total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits. We did not establish a THC limit for stripped resins and process wastewater because the data were derived from liquid samples (as opposed to gaseous samples for process vents), and no test method is available for testing THC in liquid samples. For heat exchange systems and equipment leaks, we are setting requirements for leak detection and repair (LDAR). For heat exchange systems, we are setting a total strippable volatile organic compounds (VOC) leak action level and an alternative vinyl chloride leak action level because if either of these pollutants is detected in the cooling water or in the stripping gas, then repair of the leak will be required and will control all HAP. For equipment leaks, we are setting only a VOC leak action level because the only currently EPA approved leak detection method is EPA Method 21, which measures VOC. Like heat exchange systems, if the VOC leak is detected, then repair of the leak will be required and result in control of all HAP. (See preamble section V.C for further discussion regarding the pollutants regulated.) 1. Process Vents In the proposed and final rule, we calculated the MACT floor emission levels for process vents accounting for variability using a 99-percent upper predictive limit (UPL) calculation. In the final rule, we used a 99-percent UPL calculation, but we changed the value for the number of samples used in the compliance average (the m value) in the UPL calculation for THC to 3 instead of 30 to reflect the actual number of THC test runs that will comprise the compliance average. Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble present the final process vent emission limits for existing sources and new sources, respectively, compared to the proposed limits. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS VENTS AT EXISTING MAJOR SOURCES Emission limits a Pollutant Proposed Vinyl chloride ................................. Hydrogen chloride .......................... Total hydrocarbons (THC) ............. Total organic HAP b ....................... Dioxin/furans (TEQ) ....................... Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined 0.32 ppmv ..................................... 150 ppmv ...................................... 2.0 ppmv as propane c ................. 12 ppmv ........................................ 0.023 ng/dscm .............................. 6.0 ppmv ....................................... 78 ppmv ........................................ 9.7 ppmv as propane ................... 56 ppmv ........................................ 0.038 ng/dscm .............................. 1.1 ppmv. 380 ppmv. 4.2 ppmv as propane. 9.8 ppmv. 0.051 ng/dscm. a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2). ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. c Proposed THC compliance limit. b Total TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS VENTS AT NEW MAJOR SOURCES Emission limits a Pollutant Proposed Vinyl chloride ................................. Hydrogen chloride .......................... Total hydrocarbons (THC) ............. Total organic HAP b ....................... Dioxin/furans (TEQ) ....................... a ppmv b Total Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined 3.2 ppbv ........................................ 0.17 ppmv ..................................... 2.0 ppmv as propane c ................. 0.22 ppmv ..................................... 0.0087 ng/dscm ............................ 0.56 ppmv ..................................... 0.17 ppmv ..................................... 7.0 ppmv as propane ................... 5.5 ppmv ....................................... 0.038 ng/dscm .............................. 0.56 ppmv. 1.4 ppmv. 2.3 ppmv as propane. 5.5 ppmv. 0.034 ng/dscm. = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O2. ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. THC compliance limit. c Proposed 2. Equipment Leaks In the proposed rule, we required reciprocating pumps, reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators to be equipped with double seals or the equivalent. In the final rule, we are also allowing affected sources to comply with the requirements for reciprocating pumps, reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators by complying with the requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. If double mechanical seals, or the equivalent, are not used, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU requires pumps to be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 1,000 parts per million (ppm); agitators must be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 10,000 ppm, and compressors must either be leakless (i.e., operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background) or be equipped with a system to capture and transport leaks through a closed vent system to a control device. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 3. Stripped Resin In the proposed rule, we calculated concentration values for HAP in the dispersion resin subcategory using the reported mass-based values (for HAP present in the resin) and the dispersion resin production for each facility. The concentration values were then used to calculate the MACT floor emission limits for dispersion resin. For the final rule, we used the original vinyl chloride and other organic HAP concentration values, as measured and analyzed, as VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 the basis for setting the MACT floors. This change is consistent with how we set the MACT floors for the other resin subcategories and provides a more accurate basis for setting concentrationbased limits. At proposal, vinyl chloride and total HAP limits for stripped resins were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation based on 30 days of vinyl chloride and other HAP data from all facilities that conducted resin sampling and analysis as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request for the PVC industry. The vinyl chloride stripped resin limits were calculated using data obtained from resin sampling using EPA SW–846 Method 8260B. For the final rule, vinyl chloride limits for stripped resins were calculated based on 4 years of vinyl chloride compliance data, submitted by the PVC industry after proposal, that were obtained by resin sampling using EPA Method 107. This revision was made because EPA Method 107 is a better measure than EPA SW–846 Method 8260B of the concentration of vinyl chloride in PVC resin, as explained further in section V.E of this preamble. Furthermore, because of the significantly larger dataset of vinyl chloride concentrations measured using EPA Method 107, we calculated the final stripped resin vinyl chloride limits using a percentile for the top 5 sources. Percentiles represent the specified slice of the sample data and unlike PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 confidence and prediction intervals, they are distribution-free. In the proposed rule, the total HAP limits for the stripped resin subcategories included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the final rule, vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from the total organic HAP limit calculations, resulting in total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP limits for all subcategories of stripped resin. This change was made because we have established separate limits for vinyl chloride in stripped resin and we are requiring compliance with those limits using EPA Method 107. The total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP limits are based on concentration data for all measured organic HAP, excluding vinyl chloride, collected using EPA SW–846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A. Additional discussion is provided in section V.D of this preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. At proposal, variability in the total HAP limits was assessed using a 99percent UPL calculation where the m value was set at 30 to represent 30 single daily total HAP values. For the final rule, variability was assessed in the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits using the 99-percent UPL calculation and an m value of 1 to represent monthly compliance, as E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22853 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations explained further in section V of this preamble. For the final rule, we excluded information from several facilities from the MACT floor analysis due to the use of inconsistent test methods, inaccurate or questionable method detection levels (MDL), or lack of documentation on the sampling and analysis results. The changes made to the MACT floor calculations are discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble. Tables 3 through 7 of this preamble present the proposed and final stripped resin emission limits for bulk resin, dispersion resin, suspension resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin, respectively, at existing and new sources. TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR BULK RESIN AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Bulk resin Source Pollutant Existing ............. Vinyl Chloride ....................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP ................................................................................ Vinyl Chloride ....................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP ................................................................................ New ................... a At Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a Final emission limits (ppmw) a 7.1 170 7.1 170 7.1 170 7.1 170 proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR DISPERSION STRIPPED RESIN AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Dispersion resin Source Pollutant Existing ............. Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................................................ Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................... Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................................................ Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................... New .................. a At Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a Final emission limits (ppmw) a 55 110 41 58 1300 240 480 66 proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR SUSPENSION STRIPPED RESIN AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Suspension resin Source Pollutant Existing ............. Vinyl Chloride ....................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP ................................................................................ Vinyl Chloride ....................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP ................................................................................ New ................... a At b At Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a b 0.48 76 0.20 42 Final emission limits (ppmw) a b 37 670 7.3 15 proposal, suspension resin was included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. TABLE 6—EMISSION LIMITS FOR SUSPENSION BLENDING STRIPPED RESIN AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Suspension blending resin Pollutant Existing .............. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Source Vinyl Chloride ......................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................. Vinyl Chloride ......................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................. New ................... a At b At Proposed Emission limits (ppmw) a b Final emission limits (ppmw) a b 0.48 76 0.20 42 140 500 140 500 proposal, suspension blending resin was included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR COPOLYMER STRIPPED RESIN AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Copolymer resin Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a b Source Pollutant Existing .............. Final emission limits (ppmw) a b 0.48 76 0.20 42 790 1,900 790 1,900 Vinyl Chloride ......................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................. Vinyl Chloride ......................................................................................................................... Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP .................................................................................. New ................... a At b At proposal, copolymer resins were included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. 4. Wastewater In the proposed rule, the wastewater limits applied to both process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The final rule contains vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for process wastewater, and requires compliance with the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (Hazardous Organic NESHAP or HON) maintenance wastewater provisions for maintenance wastewater at affected sources. For the proposed rule, the wastewater vinyl chloride concentration limits were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation with an m value of 1 to represent monthly compliance. The limits were calculated based on data reported in survey responses from companies responding to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114. For the final rule, we recalculated the monthly vinyl chloride concentration limits for process wastewater using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described above, but the limits were calculated based on 1 year of daily sampling data provided by the industry after proposal. In the proposed rule, total HAP emission limits were based on a beyondthe-floor option of complying with the HON flow rate and concentration limits for wastewater. The proposed total HAP limits also included vinyl chloride. For the final rule, we calculated a total non- vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit for process wastewater instead of a total HAP limit, with compliance demonstrated on a monthly basis. The total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for process wastewater are based on information and data provided by industry in response to the August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey, corrections to those data provided by the PVC industry during the public comment period, and supplemental resin sampling data provided during the public comment period by one PVC manufacturer. Table 8 of this preamble presents the proposed and final emission limits for process wastewater at existing and new sources. TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS WASTEWATER AT EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES Source Pollutant Proposed emission limits (ppmw) Existing .............. Vinyl Chloride ................................ Less than 10 ppmw for streams that do not require treatment, or 0.11 ppmw for streams that require treatment a. Less than 1,000 ppmw or less than 10 liters per minute annual average flow rate for streams that do not require treatment, or the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for streams that require treatment b. Less than 10 ppmw for streams that do not require treatment, or 0.0060 ppmw for streams that require treatment a. Less than 1,000 ppmw or less than 10 liters per minute annual average flow rate for streams that do not require treatment, or the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for streams that require treatment b. Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP. New ................... Vinyl Chloride ................................ Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP. Final emission limits (ppmw) 6.8 110 0.28 0.018 a At proposal, if a wastewater stream contained a vinyl chloride concentration greater than 10 ppmw at the point of generation, then treatment was required. b At proposal, if a wastewater stream contained a HAP concentration (based on HAP listed in Table 9 to part 63, subpart G) less than 1,000 ppmw or an annual average flow rate less than 10 liters per minute, then treatment was not required. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 5. Heat Exchange Systems We proposed that affected sources would have the option of using the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Modified El Paso Method or EPA SW–846 Method 8021B to monitor for leaks of VOC in their heat exchange system cooling water. For new affected sources, we proposed a total VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 strippable VOC leak action level of 2.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (as methane) in the stripping gas or 30 parts per billion by weight (ppbw) in the cooling water, with monitoring every 12 hours. For existing affected sources, we proposed a total strippable VOC leak action level of 2.9 ppmv (as methane) in the stripping gas or 38 ppbw in the PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 cooling water, with monthly monitoring. Our proposed delay of repair action levels for new and existing sources were a total strippable VOC leak action level of 29 ppmv (as methane) in the stripping gas or 380 ppbw in the cooling water. In the final rule, we are requiring monthly cooling water monitoring for E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations either total strippable VOC or for vinyl chloride. Total strippable VOC monitoring must be done using either the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA Method 624, and vinyl chloride monitoring must be done using EPA Method 107, as it is the established method for the PVC industry to analyze vinyl chloride concentrations in water samples. The leak action levels for new and existing sources are the same in the final rule. Furthermore, the leak action levels and delay of repair action levels are the same whether facilities monitor for strippable VOC or for vinyl chloride in the cooling water and are 50 ppbw and 500 ppbw, respectively. For total strippable VOC monitoring using the 22855 TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, the leak action level is 3.9 ppmv in the stripping gas and the delay of repair action level is 39 ppmv. Table 9 of this preamble presents the proposed and final standards for heat exchange systems at existing and new sources. TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL STANDARDS FOR HEAT EXCHANGE SYSTEMS AT EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES Source Pollutant Proposed leak action level Proposed monitoring frequency Final leak action level Existing ............. Total strippable VOC ......... Monthly ............. New .................. Vinyl chloride ..................... Total strippable VOC ......... 38 ppbw in cooling water or 2.9 ppmv in stripping gas. NA ...................................... 30 ppbw in cooling water or 2.3 ppmv in stripping gas. NA ...................................... 50 ppbw in cooling water or 3.9 ppmv in stripping gas. 50 ppbw in cooling water ... 50 ppbw in cooling water or 3.9 ppmv in stripping gas. 50 ppbw in cooling water ... Vinyl chloride ..................... NA ..................... Every 12 hours NA ..................... Final monitoring frequency Monthly. Monthly. Monthly. Monthly. NA—not applicable. We have clarified in the final rule that heat exchange systems that are in HAP service and that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of greater than 10 gallons per minute are required to monitor for leaks. 6. Other Emission Sources In addition to proposing requirements for reactor opening losses in the proposed rule, we solicited comment and additional information on emissions, controls and costs of controls for gasholders. Based on our review of comments, and analysis of methods to control emissions from gasholders, the final rule requires that emissions from gasholder vents be routed back into the process or vented through a closed vent system to a control device. Affected sources must also install floating objects on gasholder water seals to reduce emissions of vinyl chloride and other HAP from those seals. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and Reporting The final rule contains several changes to the compliance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 1. Process Vents At proposal, affected sources were required to conduct performance tests for process vents on an annual basis. In the final rule, performance tests must be conducted once every 5 years since the continuous parametric monitoring requirements ensure compliance on a continuous basis. In the final rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PVC-only and PVC combined. As at proposal, the final rule also requires that all gaseous streams from process vents must be routed into a closed vent system and sent to a control device in order to meet the PVC-only or PVCcombined emission limits. We are also requiring that each process vent stream must be characterized by developing an emission profile. This is to ensure that process vent streams are serving a valid process purpose and are not being diluted prior to control. We expect facilities to already have inventories and previous test results available to develop their emissions profile. All of the facilities that provided information in response to the August 21, 2009, PVC CAA section 114 survey, developed emission profiles. Additionally, we are allowing the emissions profile to be based on engineering assessment or measurement. Because of these reasons, we do not anticipate additional burden from this requirement. We have also clarified the definitions for process vent, continuous process vent, batch process vent and have added a definition for miscellaneous vent. These revised and new definitions are described in more detail in section V.I of this preamble. In the proposed rule, new affected sources were required to install and operate CDD/CDF continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) after the promulgation of a performance specification. New sources were also required to install and operate HCl CEMS. The requirements to install and operate CDD/CDF CEMS and HCl CEMS have been removed as requirements since the continuous parameter PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 monitoring system (CPMS) requirements are sufficient but both CEMS remain available as options to existing and new affected sources when the specifications are promulgated. 2. Stripped Resins In the proposed rule, affected sources were required to demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride limits for stripped resin using EPA SW– 846 Method 8260B. In the final rule, affected sources must demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride stripped resin limit using EPA Method 107 because it is a better measure of the concentration of vinyl chloride in resin and was specifically developed to be used to measure vinyl chloride concentration in stripped PVC resins. The final rule requires affected sources to demonstrate compliance with a total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit using the combination of four EPA SW– 846 Methods: 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A. In the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous parametric monitoring of resin strippers. Our rationale for this is explained in detail in section V.F.3 of this preamble. 3. Wastewater The final rule contains separate requirements for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. For process wastewater, we removed the requirement that a wastewater stream must be treated and meet certain HON requirements if its flow rate is greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute or contains a total HAP concentration greater than 1,000 parts per million by E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations weight (ppmw). Instead, affected sources must initially test all untreated process wastewater streams and meet the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits in the final rule prior to discharge. We have clarified the requirements for process wastewater including the requirements for determining which streams require treatment to meet the process wastewater emission limits. Consequently, we have removed the terms ‘‘point of generation’’ and ‘‘point of determination’’ from the final rule. In the proposed rule, affected sources were required to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total HAP on a monthly basis for streams that did not require treatment to ensure that their HAP concentrations remained below the applicability criteria. For the final rule, affected sources are required to determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP on an annual basis for streams that do not require treatment. In the final rule, we have added a requirement that affected sources must comply with the HON maintenance wastewater compliance requirements of 40 CFR 63.105 of subpart F. In the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous parametric monitoring of wastewater steam strippers. Our rationale for this is explained in detail in section V of this preamble. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Heat Exchange Systems We proposed that affected sources would have the option of using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA SW–846 Method 8021B to monitor for leaks of VOC in their heat exchange system cooling water. In the final rule, we have retained the option to monitor total strippable VOC in the stripping gas using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, but for cooling water monitoring, we are requiring EPA Method 624. The final rule also includes an option for facilities to monitor their cooling water for vinyl chloride using EPA Method 107. The final rule requires the same leak action level for both new and existing sources, depending on which monitoring method is used. 5. Other Emission Sources In the final rule, we are requiring emissions from gasholder vents be routed back into the process or vented through a closed vent system to a control device meeting the compliance requirements for process vents. To minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we are also requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of water seals. Affected VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 sources must establish operating procedures for use of floating devices in gasholders. These operating procedures must describe how the floating objects will be maintained to ensure a reduction in fugitive emissions from the gasholder’s water seal. E. Area Source Requirements We proposed GACT standards for PVC area sources based on the proposed MACT standards for major sources. For the final rule, we have updated our analysis of area source GACT, considering comments received, including our analysis of cost considerations. Our revised GACT analysis assesses each PVC emission point (e.g., process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks, etc.) individually, for both existing and new sources, to determine the appropriate level of control considering cost and emission reduction. The GACT analysis was conducted for the same subcategories as major sources. A discussion of the GACT analysis is presented in section V.H of this preamble. We have determined emission limits based on the control level that area sources are currently meeting to be GACT for existing and new area sources for PVC-only process vents, PVCcombined process vents, bulk resin, suspension resin, and process and maintenance wastewater. For other resin subcategories (i.e., dispersion, suspension blending and copolymer), no existing area source produces these resins. For the dispersion subcategory, we determined GACT based on the least-controlled major source control level at existing major sources in that subcategory. GACT for the suspension blending and copolymer subcategories is based on the existing major source control levels for the single facility in each subcategory from which we determined the MACT floors. For all other emission points, i.e., equipment leaks, heat exchange systems and other emission sources, we have determined that GACT should be the same work practice standards being adopted as MACT for major sources. We are also adopting the same testing and monitoring requirements that apply to major sources. Major source requirements are discussed in section IV of this preamble. F. New and Revised Definitions Several definitions were revised and added in the final rule as a result of new subcategories and other changes. The following definitions have been revised since the proposal: Batch process vent, conservation vent, continuous process vent, grade, in HAP service, polyvinyl PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 chloride, polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or PVCPU, polyvinyl chloride copolymer, pressure relief device (PRD), process vent, solution process, surge control vessel, treatment process, type of resin and wastewater. The following definitions have been added in the final rule: Gasholder, heat exchanger exit line, maintenance wastewater, miscellaneous vent, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer, process wastewater, process wastewater treatment system, PVC-combined process vent, PVC-only process vent, suspension blending process, table 10 HAP, total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and wastewater stream. The rationale for revising and adding the definitions is provided in section V.I of this preamble. IV. Summary of the Final Rules A. What is the affected source? The final rules apply to owners or operators of PVCPU located at both major source and area sources of HAP emissions, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. The subparts apply to each affected source, where the affected source is the facility wide collection of PVCPU, storage tanks, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source is one for which construction commenced after May 20, 2011, at a Greenfield facility or at an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to May 20, 2011. If components of an existing affected source are replaced, such that the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then the existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon initial startup of the reconstructed source, or by April 17, 2012, whichever is later. A PVCPU is defined as a collection of process components assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl chloride copolymers. The collection of process components includes polymerization reactors, resin stripping operations, resin blend tanks, resin centrifuges, resin dryers, resin product separators, recovery devices, reactant and raw material charge vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing tanks, finished resin product E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations loading operations, connected ducts and piping, combustion, recovery, or recapture devices or systems and equipment (i.e., all pumps, compressors, agitators, PRD, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors and instrumentation systems that are associated with the PVCPU). A PVCPU does not include chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in 40 CFR 63.101, which produce VCM or other raw materials used in the production of PVC. B. When must I comply with the major and area source standards? Existing major affected sources are required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH and existing area affected sources are required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD no later than April 17, 2015. New major and area affected sources are required to comply on April 17, 2012, or upon startup, whichever is later. C. What is the relationship between this final rule for major sources and the 40 CFR part 61, subpart F standards? Affected sources are currently subject to requirements in the part 61 NESHAP. This final rule includes requirements that are at least as stringent as the requirements in the part 61 NESHAP. Thus, once an affected source is in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, the requirements of the part 61 NESHAP will no longer apply. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES D. Are there subcategories for major sources? The final rule contains two subcategories for process vents. The process vent subcategories are based on whether the vent streams are collected from: (1) Only PVC production processes (i.e., PVC-only process vents) or (2) PVC production process and other non-PVC production processes, such as VCM or EDC manufacturing (i.e., PVCcombined process vents). The final rule contains five subcategories for limits on the amount of HAP remaining in resin following polymerization and stripping (i.e., the stripped resin). The stripped resin subcategories are based on the type of resin produced, and include the following homopolymer resins: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin and (4) suspension resin. A fifth subcategory is included in the final rule for all copolymer resins. See section V.D of this preamble for more discussion on subcategories. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 E. What emission standards must I meet for major sources? This rule establishes requirements for affected sources located at or part of a major source of HAP emissions. We explain our rationale for the finalized standards in section V.E of this preamble. 1. Storage Vessels and Handling Operations Under 40 CFR 63.11910 and Table 3 of the final rule, if you own or operate a storage vessel at a new or existing affected source, we are requiring that material stored with a maximum true vapor pressure of greater than 11.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) be stored in pressure vessels with no emissions to the atmosphere. During those times when purging is required or when the pressure vessel is being loaded, the purged stream or the emission stream during loading is required to be routed to a closed vent system and control device. The closed vent system and control device must meet the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.11925 through 40 CFR 63.11950 of the final rule. You are also required to equip all openings in the pressure vessel with closure devices that are designed to operate with no detectable emissions, as determined using procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.11910(c)(3) of the final rule. For storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons that store material with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 0.75 psia or storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons (but less than 40,000 gallons) that store materials with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 4 psia, we are requiring compliance with one of two equivalent compliance options. We are requiring that material be stored in either: (1) A floating roof tank meeting the operating, inspection and maintenance requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, or (2) a fixed roof storage vessel that routes vent streams to a closed vent system and control device (meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11925 through 40 CFR 63.11950 of the final rule) capable of reducing inlet VOC emissions by 95 percent or greater. We are requiring that all other storage vessels meet the operating, inspection and maintenance requirements for fixed roof vessels of 40 CFR 63.11910(a) of the final rule or comply with either the controlled fixed roof or floating roof requirements discussed previously. 40 CFR 63.11910(a)(1)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.11910(a)(3)(i) of the final rule PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22857 include requirements to equip each opening in the roof with a closure device, and to perform initial and annual inspections and repair any defects found within the specified time period. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible cracks, holes, gaps or other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure device; broken, cracked or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps or other closure devices. 2. Equipment Leaks In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, we are requiring that existing and new affected sources comply with the LDAR program requirements of the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards, subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63. For valves in gas and light liquid service, subpart UU specifies a leak definition of 500 ppm VOC and a monitoring frequency that is dependent upon the number of leaking valves. Subpart UU also requires equipment specifications to prevent leaks for other pieces of equipment. We are requiring that a vinyl chloride monitoring system be operated for detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system is a device that obtains air samples from one or more points continuously and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography, infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection or an equivalent or alternate method. In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, we are also requiring that, in addition to operating with no detectable emissions, there be no discharge to the atmosphere from any PRD on any equipment in HAP service within the PVC affected source. We are requiring that, upon a discharge to the atmosphere from the PRD, that the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for pressure releases from PRD be followed. 3. Heat Exchange Systems In 40 CFR 63.11920 of the final rule, we are requiring that you implement a LDAR program to detect leaks of HAP into cooling water. For both new and existing sources, we are requiring monthly monitoring for both closed loop and once-through heat exchange systems using either the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, EPA Method 624 or EPA Method 107. The leak action level is 50 ppbw of total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride in the cooling water, or a leak action level of 3.9 ppmv in the stripping gas. The delay of repair action E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22858 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations level for both new and existing sources is 500 ppbw of total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride in the cooling water, or 39 ppmv of VOC in the stripping gas. When a leak is identified, additional monitoring must be performed to isolate the source of the leak. If the total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride concentration remains below the applicable leak action level throughout the period of additional monitoring, then repairs are not required; otherwise, repairs must be completed within 45 days of identifying the leak. Repairs may be delayed if the concentration of total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride in the cooling water remains below the delay of repair action level and either: (1) It is technically infeasible to repair the leak without a shutdown, or (2) the necessary equipment, parts or personnel are not available. 4. Process Vents In 40 CFR 63.11925 of the final rule, we are requiring all process vents be routed to a closed vent system and control device meeting the emission standards in Table 10 of this preamble. All process vents must meet the emission standards, including continuous process vents, batch process vents and miscellaneous vents. We are requiring the emission limitations presented in Table 10 of this preamble for two subcategories of process vents at major sources: (1) PVConly process vents and (2) PVCcombined process vents. These emission limits apply at all times. TABLE 10—EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS VENTS AT EXISTING AND NEW MAJOR SOURCES Emission limitations a Subcategory Pollutant Existing sources PVC-only process vents ................ New sources Vinyl chloride ................................ Hydrogen chloride ........................ Total hydrocarbons (THC) b .......... Total organic HAP b ...................... Dioxin/Furans (TEQ) ..................... 6.0 ppmv ....................................... 78 ppmv ........................................ 9.7 ppmv as propane ................... 56 ppmv ........................................ 0.038 ng/dscm .............................. 0.56 ppmv. 0.17 ppmv. 7.0 ppmv as propane. 5.5 ppmv. 0.038 ng/dscm. Vinyl chloride ................................ Hydrogen chloride ........................ Total hydrocarbons (THC) b .......... Total organic HAP b ...................... Dioxin/Furans (TEQ) ..................... 1.1 ppmv ....................................... 380 ppmv ...................................... 4.2 ppmv as propane ................... 9.8 ppmv ....................................... 0.051 ng/dscm .............................. 0.56 ppmv. 1.4 ppmv. 2.3 ppmv as propane. 5.5 ppmv. 0.034 ng/dscm. PVC-combined process vents a ppbv = parts per billion by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O ). ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O . ng/dscm = 2 2 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. b Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC. 5. Other Emission Sources Other emission sources include reactor and other component opening losses and gasholders. When reactors or other components (including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resin) are opened for cleaning, we are requiring in 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule that emissions be minimized prior to opening. We are requiring that emissions from opening a polymerization reactor must not exceed 0.04 pound vinyl chloride/ton of polyvinyl chloride product where the product means the gross product of prepolymerization and postpolymerization. We are requiring emissions from opening of process components for any reason be minimized by reducing the volume of vinyl chloride to an amount that occupies a volume of no more than 2.0 percent of the component’s containment volume or 25 gallons, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and pressure. Any vinyl chloride emissions resulting from opening equipment must be ducted through a closed vent system to a control device meeting the process vent limits of the final rule. The outlet of the control device must meet the emission limitations for process vents discussed in section IV.E.4 of this preamble. In 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule, we are requiring that emissions from gasholders must either be routed back into the process or be vented to a closed vent system and control device from which the exhaust gases do not exceed the process vent limits. To minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we are also requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal. Each gasholder must operate with one or more types of objects installed on the surface of the water seal to reduce emissions from those seals, including floating balls, hollow floating disks, an oil layer and/or floating mats. 6. Stripped Resin In 40 CFR 63.11960 of the final rule, we are setting emission limits for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for five subcategories of stripped resins, as presented in Tables 11 and 12 of this preamble. The limits were developed for new and existing affected sources, based on the type of resin produced. Subcategories for homopolymer resins are: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin and (4) suspension resin. A fifth subcategory is included in the final rule for copolymer resin. These emission limits would apply at all times. TABLE 11—LIMITS FOR STRIPPED RESINS AT EXISTING MAJOR SOURCES sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Emission limits (ppmw) Homopolymer resins Pollutant Dispersion resin Bulk resin Vinyl chloride ...................................................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 7.1 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Suspension resin 1,300 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 37 17APR2 Suspension blending resin 140 Copolymer resin 790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22859 TABLE 11—LIMITS FOR STRIPPED RESINS AT EXISTING MAJOR SOURCES—Continued Emission limits (ppmw) Homopolymer resins Pollutant Dispersion resin Bulk resin Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ................................ 170 Suspension resin 240 670 Suspension blending resin 500 Copolymer resin 1,900 TABLE 12—LIMITS FOR STRIPPED RESINS AT NEW MAJOR SOURCES Emission limits (ppmw) Homopolymer resins Pollutant Dispersion resin Bulk resin Vinyl chloride .................................................................... Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP .............................. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7. Wastewater In 40 CFR 63.11965 of the final rule, we are requiring process wastewater streams at existing sources to meet emission limits of 6.8 ppmw for vinyl chloride and 110 ppmw for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP before being exposed to the atmosphere, discharged from the affected source or discharged from the affected source untreated as wastewater. Process wastewater streams at new sources are required to meet emission limits of 0.28 ppmw for vinyl chloride and 0.018 ppmw for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP before being exposed to the atmosphere, discharged from the affected source or discharged from the affected source untreated as wastewater. Pollutant concentrations in each process wastewater stream at existing and new sources must be measured immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component, before being exposed to the atmosphere and before mixing with any other wastewater stream. The final rule contains separate requirements for maintenance wastewater. Maintenance wastewater must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.105. F. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for major sources? In 40 CFR 63.11896 of the final rule, we are requiring that, if you make a process change to an existing affected source that does not meet the criteria to become a reconstructed affected source in 40 CFR 63.11870(e) of the final rule, you must be in compliance for any added or changed emission points by the compliance date for existing affected sources. If the process change occurs after the compliance date for existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 7.1 170 480 66 sources, then the added or changed emissions point must be in compliance upon startup. If the process change results in a change in the characteristics of any emission point such that a different emission standard or operating parameter limit applies, we are requiring that you demonstrate that the changed emission point complies with the applicable requirements for an existing affected source. You must demonstrate compliance with any emission limits and establish applicable operating limits by 180 days after the compliance date for existing affected sources; if the startup of the changed emission point occurs after the compliance date for existing affected sources, then you must demonstrate compliance with any emission limits and establish applicable operating limits by 180 days after the date of initial startup of the changed emission point. We are also requiring that, if you make a process change to a new affected source, you demonstrate that any added emission points are in compliance with the applicable standards for a new affected source by startup of the changed emission point. You must also demonstrate initial compliance with any emission limits and establish applicable operating limits by 180 days after the date of initial startup of the changed process unit. If you make a process change that adds or changes emission points, we are requiring that you demonstrate continuous compliance with your emission standards and operating limits according to the procedures and frequency in 40 CFR 63.11910 through 40 CFR 63.11980 of this final rule and submit a notification report specified in 40 CFR 63.11985 of the final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Suspension resin 7.3 15 Suspension blending resin 140 500 Copolymer resin 790 1,900 A facility subject to the PVCcombined process vent limits that no longer combines process vent streams from other source categories, or a facility that is subject to the PVC-only process vent limits that subsequently combines process vent streams from other source categories, is subject to the process change requirements in 40 CFR 63.11896 of the final rule. Routine and maintenance shutdowns that cause temporary cessation of the vent stream flow from other source categories are not subject to the process change requirements. 1. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for storage vessels? For each floating roof storage vessel, we are requiring that you meet the operating, inspection, repair and maintenance requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. For each fixed roof storage tank venting through a closed vent system to a control device achieving 95-percent reduction in total HAP emissions, we are requiring that you meet the requirements for closed vent systems and control devices in 40 CFR 63.11925 of the final rule and summarized in section IV.F.4 of this preamble. In 40 CFR 63.11910 of the final rule, we are also requiring that, for each fixed roof tank, you install and maintain the tank with no visible cracks, holes or other open spaces between roof section joints or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall. We are also requiring that you install closure devices that you secure in the closed position except during periods when you need to have access to the interior of the fixed roof tank. The closure device may be opened during the period E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22860 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations needed to provide access. The fixed roof tank and its closure device are required to be inspected initially and at least once per year. The inspection requirements are not applicable to parts of the fixed roof that are determined to be unsafe to inspect if you document and explain why it is unsafe to inspect and develop a plan to conduct inspections when the tank is not in service. A first attempt to repair defects must be made no later than 5 calendar days after detection and repairs are required to be completed no later than 45 days after detection, except as specified in 40 CFR 63.11910(a)(4)(ii) of the final rule. In 40 CFR 63.11910 of the final rule, for pressure vessels, we are requiring that all potential leak interfaces in the pressure vessel be monitored for leaks annually and repaired following the procedures of 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 2. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for equipment leaks? For each applicable piece of equipment (e.g., valves, connectors) associated with your affected source, we are requiring that you meet the LDAR requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, you are required to install a release indicator on each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release and notify operators that a pressure release has occurred. 3. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for heat exchange systems? We are requiring that, for each affected source, you must operate a heat exchange system monitoring program, as specified in the final rule. Under the compliance requirements for heat exchange systems in 40 CFR 63.11920 of the final rule, an affected source is required to conduct sampling and analyses for either total strippable VOC using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA Method 624, or for vinyl chloride using EPA Method 107. Affected sources must monitor no less frequently than monthly and fix any leaks detected. We are requiring different sampling locations for oncethrough and closed loop heat exchange systems, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11920 of the final rule. For oncethrough systems only, you may monitor at the cooling tower return line prior to exposure to the air or you may monitor the inlet water feed line prior to any heat exchange. If multiple heat exchange systems use the same water VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange systems that use that same water feed. For oncethrough systems, you must monitor selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a system is covered by the selected monitoring location. Monitoring of selected heat exchanger exit lines is also a monitoring option for closed loop systems. We are exempting a heat exchange system from the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.11920 if all heat exchangers within the heat exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the process side, the heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers that are in HAP service, or the heat exchange system has a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per minute or less. Identified leaks must be repaired as soon as practicable, but within 45 days after identifying the leak. We are allowing delay of repair as long as the total strippable VOC concentration is below 39 ppmv in the stripping gas or below 500 ppbw in the cooling water, or the vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water is below 500 ppbw and other criteria are met. Specifically, leaking heat exchanger repairs may be delayed if the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown or the necessary equipment, parts or personnel are not available. To delay repairs in either case, the total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride concentration must initially be, and remain less than, the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods during the delay of repair. 4. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for process vents? To demonstrate compliance for process vents, you are required to meet the requirements of final 40 CFR 63.11930 for each closed vent system that routes emissions from process vents to a control device. You are required to meet the initial and continuous compliance requirements for process vents specified in 40 CFR 63.11925 and 40 CFR 63.11935, the monitoring requirements for your process vent control device, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11940 and the performance testing requirements for process vents in 40 CFR 60.11945. You may not use a flare to comply with the emission limits of PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the final rule, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11925(b). As specified in 40 CFR 63.11925(g), affected sources are required to characterize their process vents by developing an emission profile that describes the characteristics of the process vent stream under either absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions. In 40 CFR 63.11950, we have provided equations to develop the emissions profile for each batch process vent, including equations for vapor displacement, gas sweep of a partially filled vessel, heating, depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air drying and purging. All other emissions or emissions episodes for the emissions profile would be determined through an engineering assessment or through testing approved by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 63.11950(i) of the final rule. Closed vent systems. In 40 CFR 63.11930 of the final rule, for closed vent systems, you are required to meet specified design requirements and install flow indicators in the bypass lines or meet other requirements to prevent and detect bypass of the control device. You must also follow the inspection, leak monitoring and repair requirements in 40 CFR 63.11930 of the final rule for closed vent systems. Closed vent systems in vacuum service are required to install alarms rather than performing leak inspection and monitoring. If you operate a closed vent system in vacuum service, you are not required to comply with the other closed vent system requirements in the final rule. Performance testing, continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) and continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) requirements for process vents and associated control devices. Compliance is demonstrated through a combination of performance testing (as specified in 40 CFR 63.11925 and 40 CFR 63.11945) and/or monitoring using CPMS and/or CEMS that measure process vent control device operating parameters (as specified in 40 CFR 63.11925, 40 CFR 63.11935 and 40 CFR 63.11940). These sections also refer to Tables 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 of the final rule for emission limits, testing methods and requirements. Below, we summarize the process vent testing and compliance requirements by pollutant. Each performance test must consist of three test runs. We are requiring that existing and new sources demonstrate initial compliance with the THC emission limits in Table 1 or 2 of the final rule by measuring THC at the outlet of the control device using EPA Method 25A, as specified in Table 8 of the final rule. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations The minimum test run duration would be 1 hour. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC emission limits, each control device must be tested once every 5 years using EPA Method 25A. Alternatively, existing and new sources may demonstrate initial compliance with the total organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 of the final rule by measuring total organic HAP at the outlet of the control device using EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total organic HAP emission limits, each control device must be tested once every 5 years using EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320. During the initial compliance test, you are required to establish values for the control device operating parameters specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 and 40 CFR 63.11940 (e.g., oxidizer temperature). You would then use a CPMS to continuously monitor that parameter to demonstrate continuous compliance with either the THC or total organic HAP limits. New and existing sources could elect to use THC CEMS instead of establishing operating limits and using CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance for THC emission limits. All CEMS must meet the applicable performance specifications, procedures and other calibration, accuracy and operating and maintenance requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 of the final rule. For vinyl chloride, you are required to demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial performance test using EPA Method 18. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride emission limits, each control device must be tested once every 5 years using EPA Method 18. For CDD/CDF, you demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using EPA Method 23 and continuous compliance by conducting performance tests using EPA Method 23 once every 5 years. The minimum sampling volume collected is 5 cubic meters for EPA Method 23. For HCl, you must demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial performance test using EPA Method 26 or 26A. The minimum sampling volumes collected is 60 liters for EPA Method 26 or 1 cubic meter for EPA Method 26A. Additionally, you are required to establish operating parameters during the initial performance test and use CPMS to continuously monitor those parameters. New and existing sources are no longer required to use CEMS but have the option of using HCl and/or CDD/CDF CEMS instead of conducting continuous parametric monitoring which is sufficient to demonstrate VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 continuous compliance, as provided in 40 CFR 63.11925 of the final rule. All CEMS must meet the applicable performance specifications, procedures and other calibration, accuracy and operating and maintenance requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 of the final rule. The final rule includes specific performance testing requirements, including the process operating conditions under which performance tests should be conducted, for continuous process vents and batch operations, as provided in 40 CFR 63.11945, and discussed in sections IV.F and IV.G of this preamble. All CPMS are required to have data averaging periods of 3-hour block averages. All CPMS are required to meet minimum accuracy and calibration frequency requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 and Table 7 of the final rule. For each monitored parameter, you must establish a minimum, maximum or a range that indicates proper operation of the control device, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935(d). The final rule specifies the parameters that would be monitored for each type of control device, including each oxidizer, absorber, adsorber, condenser or other control device. You must also install a flow indicator at the inlet of the control device to indicate periods of no flow to the control device. Some control devices are subject to additional emission point-specific performance testing requirements, as described in 40 CFR 63.11945 of the final rule. We have included specific performance testing requirements for continuous process vents and batch operations, as provided in 40 CFR 63.11945 of the final rule and discussed in sections IV.F and IV.G of this preamble. 5. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for wastewater? As specified in 40 CFR 63.11965(b) of the final rule, we are requiring that you conduct an initial test for process wastewater streams from the affected source to determine the vinyl chloride and the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations. You are required to use EPA Method 107 for measuring vinyl chloride and EPA SW–846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A for measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. For process wastewater streams that are not being treated, we are requiring that you determine which of those process wastewater streams, if any, require treatment in order to meet the wastewater emission limits. You must PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22861 collect one grab sample immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component and before mixing with any other wastewater stream and before being exposed to the atmosphere, discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as wastewater. If your process wastewater stream contains vinyl chloride concentrations greater than or equal to 6.8 ppmw at existing sources or 0.28 ppmw at new sources or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations greater than or equal to 110 ppmw at existing sources or 0.018 ppmw at new sources, you are required to treat the wastewater stream to achieve concentrations below these levels. We are requiring that you measure at the outlet of the treatment system by collecting one grab sample each month. In the final rule, affected sources must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.105 for maintenance wastewater streams. For more information on the wastewater compliance requirements, see 40 CFR 63.11965, 40 CFR 63.11970 and 40 CFR 63.11975 of the final rule. 6. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for stripped resins? In 40 CFR 63.11960 of the final rule, we are requiring that you conduct initial performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for stripped resins. We are also requiring that you conduct daily sampling and testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride limit and monthly sampling and testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit. The tests must be conducted at the outlet of the resin stripper for continuous processes and immediately after stripping for batch processes. You are required to use EPA Method 107 for measuring vinyl chloride and EPA SW–846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A for measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP listed in Table 10 of the final rule. To demonstrate initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP limits, you are required to collect one grab sample every 8 hours for a single grade or one grab sample per grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more frequent, for each resin stripper over a 24-hour period. You are required to collect samples over a 24-hour period that reflects the primary product being produced, based on total mass of resin E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES produced in the preceding 12 months. Grade is defined in 40 CFR 63.12005 of the final rule. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride limit for a continuous process, you are required to collect one grab sample from each resin stripper every 8 hours for a single grade or one grab sample per grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more frequent. To demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride limit for a batch process, you are required to collect one grab sample from each batch of resin produced. You must demonstrate compliance on a daily basis using a 24-hour grade-weighted average concentration, based on production. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for a continuous process, on a monthly basis, you are required to collect one grab sample every 8 hours for a single grade or per grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more frequent from each resin stripper over a single 24-hour period. The 24-hour arithmetic average total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration for each stripper for each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period must be calculated using the individual HAP concentrations measured for the grab. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for a batch process, on a monthly basis, you are required to collect one grab sample for each batch of resin produced over a 24-hour period. You must demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. 7. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for other emission sources? To demonstrate compliance with the requirements for other emission sources, we are requiring that prior to opening reactors and other components, you follow the initial and continuous compliance requirements of 40 CFR 63.11955. In 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule, we are requiring that each gasholder must either be routed back into the process or be vented to a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11925 through 63.11950. To minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we are also requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal. Affected sources must establish operating procedures for use of floating devices in gasholders. These operating procedures must describe how the floating objects will be maintained to ensure a reduction in fugitive emissions from the gasholder’s water seal. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 G. What are the performance testing requirements for batch process operations at major sources? For batch process operations, performance tests must be conducted under the most challenging conditions that you run your batch process operations to ensure that the control device(s) is/are operating at the level needed for compliance under all conditions. Subsequent to the initial compliance test, continuous monitoring of operating parameters established during the initial test is the measure of continuous compliance with the efficiency requirement under all conditions. H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements at major sources? 1. Notifications and Reports All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 4 of the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Reports include notifications of initial startup, initial notification, notification of compliance status, compliance reports, notification of performance test, notification of inspection, batch precompliance report and other notifications and reports specified in the final 40 CFR 63.11985. The notification of compliance status report required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) must include certifications of compliance with rule requirements. The excess emissions and continuous system performance report and summary report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the NESHAP General Provisions (referred to in the rule as a compliance report) are required to be submitted semi-annually for reporting periods during which there was: An exceedance of any emission limit or a monitored parameter; a deviation from any of the requirements in the rule; or if any process changes occurred and compliance certifications were reevaluated. The final rule includes additional requirements for what you must include in these reports for each type of emission point. See 40 CFR 63.11985 of the final rule. 2. Recordkeeping The final rule requires compiling and retaining records to demonstrate compliance with each emission standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified either PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 directly in the final rule, in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and in 40 CFR part 63, subparts F, UU and WW. Records that we are requiring that you keep include performance tests, records of CPMS and CEMS, records of malfunctions, records of deviations, records specific to each emission point and other records specified in 40 CFR 63.11990. The 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions requirements that apply are listed in Table 4 of the final rule. We are requiring that records be kept for 5 years in a form suitable and readily available for EPA review. We are requiring that records be kept on site for 2 years; you may keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years. See 40 CFR 63.11990 of the final rule. I. What are the requirements for area sources? We are revising the existing NESHAP for PVC production area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD), based on the results of our GACT analysis, as explained in section V.H of this preamble. The final rule subcategorizes process vents and stripped resin at existing and new area sources in the same manner as major sources. All new and existing sources are required to comply with requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), are identified in Table 4 of the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD. The final rule contains the same notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for area sources as for major sources. In the final rule, performance testing requirements at batch operations as well as process change requirements, discussed in sections IV.G and IV.F of this preamble, respectively, are the same for PVC area sources as for major sources. The final rule requires area sources to meet the following requirements: 1. Storage Vessels and Handling Operations Storage vessel and handling operations at existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the same standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.1 and IV.F.1 of this preamble. 2. Equipment Leaks Equipment leaks at existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the same standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.2 and IV.F.2 of this preamble. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22863 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3. Heat Exchange Systems Heat exchange systems at existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the same standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.3 and IV.F.3 of this preamble. 4. Process Vents PVC-only process vents and PVCcombined process vents from existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the emission limits summarized in Table 13 of this preamble. They are also subject to the same requirements as major sources for demonstrating compliance (e.g., continuous parametric monitoring, performance tests, test methods, etc.), as discussed in section IV.F.4 of this preamble. TABLE 13—EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS VENTS AT EXISTING AND NEW AREA SOURCES Emission limits a Subcategory Pollutant Existing sources PVC-only process vents ................ PVC-combined process vents ....... Vinyl chloride ................................ Total hydrocarbons (THC) b .......... Total organic HAP b ...................... Dioxin/Furans (TEQ) ..................... Vinyl chloride ................................ Total hydrocarbons (THC) b .......... Total organic HAP ........................ Dioxin/Furans (TEQ) ..................... New sources 5.3 ppmv ....................................... 46 ppmv as propane .................... 140 ppmv ...................................... 0.13 ng/dscm ................................ 0.56 ppmv ..................................... 2.3 ppmv as propane ................... 29 ppmv ........................................ 0.076 ng/dscm .............................. 5.3 ppmv. 46 ppmv as propane. 140 ppmv. 0.13 ng/dscm. 0.56 ppmv. 2.3 ppmv as propane. 29 ppmv. 0.076 ng/dscm. a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2). ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. b Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC. 5. Other Emission Sources Other emission sources include reactor and other component opening losses and gasholders. These emission sources at existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the same standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as discussed in section IV.E.5 and IV.F.7 of this preamble. 6. Stripped Resins Stripped resins at new and existing area sources are subject to the emission limits summarized in Table 14 of this preamble. They are also subject to the same compliance requirements as major sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.6 and IV.F.6 of this preamble. The two existing area sources produce bulk and suspension resins and we have established GACT limits for those resin subcategories based on data for the two area sources. However, as discussed in section V of this preamble, existing major sources may have the potential to become synthetic area sources by taking federally enforceable permit limits before the first substantive compliance date of this rule. Therefore, we are also setting existing area source limits for dispersion resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin. We are also establishing limits for new area sources based on the type of resin that could potentially be produced: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin, (4) suspension resin and (5) copolymer resin. TABLE 14—EMISSION LIMITS FOR STRIPPED RESINS AT NEW AND EXISTING AREA SOURCES Emission limits (ppmw) Subcategory Pollutant Bulk resin .................................................................... Suspension ................................................................. Dispersion ................................................................... Suspension blending .................................................. Copolymer ................................................................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 7. Wastewater In the final rule, we are requiring that process wastewater streams at existing and new PVC area sources reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, measured immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component and before mixing with any other wastewater stream, to no more than the levels specified in Table 15 of VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Vinyl chloride .............................................................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... this preamble. We are also requiring that wastewater streams from existing and new PVC area sources meet the same requirements for demonstrating compliance as major sources including maintenance wastewater work practices, as discussed in section IV.F.5 of this preamble. PO 00000 Existing sources Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 New sources 7.1 170 36 36 1,500 320 140 500 790 1,900 7.1 170 36 36 1,500 320 140 500 790 1,900 TABLE 15—LIMITS FOR PROCESS WASTEWATER AT NEW AND EXISTING AREA SOURCES Pollutant Vinyl chloride .............................. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................................... E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Emission limits (ppmw) 2.1 0.018 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22864 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements? The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews (e.g., risk assessment) of CAA section 112 standards, as well as for many other purposes, including compliance determinations, emission factor development and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators to locate, collect and submit emissions test data in paper form because of varied locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent years though, stack testing firms have typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. In the final rule, the EPA is including a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. Specifically, we are requiring owners and operators of PVC production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports to the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store performance test data for use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. Data entry will be through an electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report that will be submitted using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The report is submitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at https:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). The requirement to submit source test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/ert/ert_tool.html. Industry will benefit from this approach to electronic data submittal. Having these data, the EPA will be able to develop improved emission factors, make fewer information requests and promulgate better regulations. The information to be reported is already required for the existing test methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method. One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT is that it will provide a standardized method to compile and store much of the documentation required to be reported by this final rule. Another advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing information is required. Another important benefit of submitting these data to the EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews. This would result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests and assessing the results). State, local and tribal agencies may also benefit from the more streamlined and accurate review process created by an electronic review process rather than a manual data assessment, making review and evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally, another benefit of the data submittal to WebFIRE electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational practices. In summary, consistent with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued on January 18, 2011, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data should save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort, while also improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations. V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Rule This section contains a summary of major comments and responses, and rationale for changes made to the proposed rule. The EPA received many comments covering numerous topics. The EPA’s responses to those comments can be found either in this preamble or in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production: Summary of Public Comments and Responses, in the PVC docket (EPA– HQ–OAR–2002–0037). A. Affected Sources Comment: Two commenters requested clarification on the applicability of the EPA’s definition of ‘‘new source.’’ One commenter pointed out that if a PVC manufacturing company were planning to commence construction of a new line, based on the proposed rule, the new line would trigger ‘‘new source’’ requirements regardless of the magnitude of HAP emissions. Response: We believe that we have adequately addressed the concerns raised by the commenter by the way we have revised the definition of a new affected source because the addition of a PVCPU does not necessarily trigger a new affected source. In the proposed rule, the affected source was defined as each individual PVCPU, and a new affected source was a PVCPU for which construction commenced on or after May 20, 2011, at a major or area source. The proposed rule also required that, if components of an existing affected source were replaced such that the replacement met the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced on or after May 20, 2011, then that existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. Under the proposed rule, the affected source was each PVCPU, but a PVCPU was defined to include all equipment connected by shared piping, including equipment that is typically shared by multiple units, such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment systems. By defining a PVCPU in this manner, according to the commenter the rule E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations could be interpreted to mean that a change to any existing PVCPU such that it becomes subject to new source requirements or the addition of a new PVCPU could require existing affected sources also to comply with the more stringent new source standards. For example, if the facility chose to comply with the emission limits for the new PVCPU unit using an existing control device that also controlled emissions from other existing PVCPU, then all the PVCPU routing to that control device would have to meet the new source emissions limit because there would be no way to differentiate the streams at the control device. Because it might not be technically possible for existing PVCPU to meet the new source requirements, the alternative would be to construct dedicated controls or supporting process equipment for new sources. The same situation would apply to other shared equipment, such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment. We did not intend such a result when we proposed the definitions of affected source and new source in 40 CFR 63.11870. In light of the comments received, we are modifying the affected source definition to avoid the unintended results identified by the commenters with regard to the requirements for new sources. In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source is any one of the following situations: sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES • All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed at a Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to the rule proposal but has undergone process changes to start producing PVC. • Reconstructed affected source. Notwithstanding whether other approaches have been taken in other rules, the PVC NESHAP rule applies to a narrower selection of processes than HON or the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON), and we concluded that the affected source and new source definitions in the final rule are reasonable for the PVC industry. These edits clarify the requirements for new and existing sources and any further changes, such as defining threshold limits, are not necessary. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 B. Overlapping Rules Comment: Commenters expressed concern about overlapping requirements between the PVC MACT and other MACT that may be applicable to PVC and EDC/VCM facilities. One commenter requested that promulgation of the PVC MACT be delayed until a consolidated rule can be issued that also addresses EDC/VCM manufacturing facilities because the application of two separate rules is confusing to the regulated community. Another commenter proposed that the EPA expressly state that PVC vent streams and the centralized thermal oxidizers and ancillary equipment in which they are controlled with EDC/VCM vent streams not be subject to the requirements of the PVC MACT as long as they are controlled by the HON or other MACT standards because the commenter asserts that the EPA has made similar accommodations to address overlapping and conflicting requirements in previous MACT rules. Other commenters requested that the EPA provide overlap provisions for facilities that are already subject to other MACT standards. The commenters stated that affected sources currently subject to other part 63 NESHAP should have the option to choose one compliance option for the entire source rather than trying to demonstrate compliance with two separate requirements for the same equipment. One commenter pointed out that the proposed rule could cause regulatory inconsistencies because, for a PVCPU utilizing a control device system already regulated under another part 63 MACT (e.g., HON), that control device would have to meet two different standards (i.e., HON MACT and PVC MACT). One commenter proposed that the EPA should provide an option in the final rule that would allow the owner/ operator to continue to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the MON MACT in lieu of the PVC MACT rule if greater than 50 percent of the heat input or the organic HAP vent flow to a ‘‘shared’’ emission control device are from facilities that are subject to the MON MACT. Response: In response to several of the comments, the final rule contains two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only process vents and PVCcombined process vents. Although this rulemaking is not consolidated with a rule for EDC/VCM production in the manner suggested by the commenter, the PVC-combined process vents subcategory addresses the concerns expressed. The process vent standards in the final rule for combined streams, PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22865 e.g., from PVC and EDC/VCM, are based on and are consistent with emission testing conducted by the PVC and EDC/ VCM industries in response to our CAA section 114 requests of PVC, VCM and EDC facilities. Our decision to set limits for the two process vent subcategories is further discussed in section V.D of this preamble. If a PVCPU uses a control device already subject to another Part 63 MACT rule such as the HON, then the facility may meet both sets of standards as applicable to the emission point or may choose to separate the two emission streams and route them to separate control devices, each complying with applicable requirements in the respective MACT standard. For the PVC process vent, the applicable standard may change from PVCcombined to PVC-only if the result is a process vent that qualifies as PVC-only. We disagree with the commenters that requested the final rule should clearly state the governing rule when regulations overlap. If an emission point is subject to both the PVC NESHAP and other NESHAP because emissions from two source categories are vented to the same control device, both standards apply. Multiple standards applicable to one emission point for the same pollutant are not necessarily ‘‘conflicting’’ or ‘‘inconsistent.’’ In some standards, the EPA has allowed compliance with another overlapping standard where that other overlapping standard was determined to be at least as stringent. However for this rule, it would not be appropriate to state that sources automatically or optionally may comply with another NESHAP in lieu of the PVC NESHAP because the requirements of the other NESHAP may be less stringent than the PVC NESHAP, including its MACT floor-based standards. If the EPA were to allow sources to meet the requirements from overlapping, but potentially less stringent rules in lieu of the PVC standards, there is the possibility that PVC facilities would not meet the MACT floor based standards in this rule. Although we recognize that facilities may be subject to different NESHAP regulations, sources are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all applicable regulations. Many NESHAP regulations provide a wide variety of compliance options, and, as such, it would be a difficult task to identify in advance which is the most stringent requirement in each case. We also disagree with allowing PVC sources to comply with other regulations, such as the MON, instead of complying with the PVC MACT, if 50 percent of the heat input or vent flow to a control device is E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22866 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES from a source regulated by the other standard. Such an approach is unjustified because the emissions from the PVC process might not meet the PVC MACT limits and achieve the required HAP reductions (described in the previous paragraph). C. Pollutants Regulated Comment: One commenter contended that the CAA required that standards be set for individual HAP and that a 2004 District of Columbia Circuit Court decision established criteria that surrogates must meet. The commenter stated that the EPA does not acknowledge this test or provide an argument that total organic HAP satisfies the identified criteria: (1) Target HAP is ‘‘invariably’’ present in the surrogate pollutant, (2) methods to control or capture the surrogate pollutant ‘‘indiscriminately’’ control or capture the target HAP and (3) the controls for the surrogate are the ‘‘only means’’ by which facilities ‘‘achieve’’ reductions of the target HAP. Another commenter claimed that each pollutant should have emission limits and procedures that achieve reduction, instead of making vinyl chloride the surrogate. Another commenter added that the EPA’s failure to set emissions standards for each HAP that PVC plants emit contravenes the CAA and that the EPA must demonstrate that total organic HAP (or total HAP as proposed for stripped resin and process wastewater) is a valid surrogate. One commenter suggested that limits for the individual most toxic and most prevalent HAP, as well as the total, should be developed. Another commenter added that the proposed rule only limited vinyl chloride in monitoring of leaks, process components and wastewater streams where there are other HAP and toxins present. Other commenters agreed with the proposed rule that total organic HAP is the appropriate parameter for limiting organic HAP emissions and the only workable approach for developing limits that comply with the CAA. The commenters also explained that a total organic HAP limit provides the product flexibility needed by the industry’s downstream customers. The commenters further submitted that setting standards for each individual organic HAP would not reflect an emission level that is achieved by the best performing facilities in the industry due to the variability in emissions across the best performing facilities, consistent with the Court’s observations in the PVC MACT Case. Response: Consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA has VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 set standards for all HAP emitted from the major source PVC source category. Contrary to the commenters’ assertion, the EPA is not obligated to set a separate MACT standard for each and every individual HAP emitted by PVC major sources. Rather, as the Court recognized in Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. Whitman, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 637), the EPA has authority to use surrogates to regulate HAP ‘‘if it is reasonable to do so[.]’’ EPA has used surrogates, as appropriate, here and set standards for the HAP emitted from the major source PVC source category. As discussed above, the final rule contains emission limits for vinyl chloride for process vents, stripped resin and process wastewater at PVC facilities. We have set separate limits for vinyl chloride, which is an organic HAP, because vinyl chloride is present in all emission points within the PVC source category and is already regulated at PVC facilities under the part 61 NESHAP. The final rule also contains process vent emission limits for THC, as a surrogate for organic HAP. Further, the final rule contains process vent emission limits for CDD/ CDF because unlike the vinyl chloride and other organic HAP emitted from process vents at PVC facilities, CDD/ CDF are generated from combustion control of organic HAP from process vents and require separate test methods to be detected and measured. Indeed, CDD/CDF cannot be detected using the test methods available to test for other organic HAP. Finally, the final rule contains process vent emission limits for HCl, which is an inorganic HAP that is generated from the combustion control of organic HAP from process vents. HCl is controlled in a completely different manner than organics and requires separate treatment (usually a scrubber following the thermal oxidizer). As shown below, HCl is also a surrogate for chlorine. We have limited test data indicating that chlorine may be present in emissions from process vents. The HCl standard will address such emissions, however, to the extent they exist.1 As noted above, we are finalizing a limit on THC as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions from process vents. THC is an appropriate surrogate, applying the 3-part ‘‘test’’ cited by the commenter. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 987 (D.C. Cir. 2004). First, the target HAP at issue here (i.e., organic HAP) 1 As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, all of the standards for process vents, stripped resin and process wastewater are in the form of concentration standards. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 from PVC process vents are ‘‘invariably’’ present in the surrogate (THC), i.e., PVC process vent emissions always contain organic HAP, and the organic HAP are comprised of hydrocarbons that will be measured as THC. Second, methods to control THC (in this case, a combination of vapor recovery, such as condensers, along with thermal oxidizers for PVC process vents) indiscriminately control the target organic HAP. Finally, the methods to control THC are the only means to achieve reductions of the target organic HAP from process vents that we have identified for this source category. We considered whether changes could be made to the VCM reaction process that is used to produce PVC and/or to the chemical inputs to the reaction process, and we concluded that such changes are not possible without fundamentally changing the PVC product being manufactured by these facilities. (See discussion below regarding variety of PVC products.) It is indisputable that the controls described above, which are necessary to meet the final emission limits, result in the removal of THC, which means organics are removed as well. Accordingly, we have met the three-part test identified by the commenter for surrogacy, as we have shown that THC is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP from PVC process vents. The three-part test upon which the commenter relies stems from a District of Columbia Circuit case that addressed the appropriateness of using particulate matter as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP. In a different case reviewing the PVC MACT standards issued in 2002, the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA has authority to use a surrogate ‘‘if it is reasonable to do so[.]’’ Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. Whitman, 370 F.3d 1242–43. We maintain that THC is a reasonable surrogate for organic HAP based on our determination that for PVC process vents there are always organic HAP in the THC, and PVC facilities will comply with the THC standard by using vapor recovery and thermal oxidization to reduce emissions of THC, which necessarily and indiscriminately will reduce emissions of all organic HAP. Thus, the removal of the THC will remove the organic HAP. Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242–43 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Similarly, HCl is a reasonable surrogate for chlorine. Chlorine is present with the HCl, and the methods to control HCl would necessarily capture or control any chlorine that may be emitted by major PVC facilities. In addition, we are not aware of any other controls for the PVC industry that E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations would achieve reductions in chlorine, other than the controls that would be required to meet the final HCl limit in this rule. For additional information on chlorine and HCl see the Revised Baseline Emission Estimates for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category and the Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category technical memoranda in the docket for this rule. For stripped resin and process wastewater, the final rule includes emission limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, as opposed to THC. We were not able to establish a THC limit as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions from stripped resins and process wastewater because the data available to the agency, upon which the standards were based, were from sampling a slurry (liquid), not a gaseous stream which is necessary to collect THC data and to establish THC limits. Specifically, the data in the record were sampling data taken at the outlet of the resin strippers. The outlet of a resin stripper is the most readily available place to obtain a sample (as opposed to the resin dryer exhaust) and is appropriate given that we project that all of the HAP in the resin stripper outlet are ultimately emitted from downstream processes (e.g., resin dryers). However, at the outlet of the stripper, the resin is in either a slurry (liquid) or dry (solid) form, as opposed to a gaseous stream, as is the case for process vents. There are no test methods available to determine levels of THC in a liquid or solid phase. Accordingly, we had no basis on which to set a THC limit and we, therefore, established limits for vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP from stripped resin and process wastewater. However, the control approaches used to meet the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits are the same as those used to reduce emissions of individual organic HAP species. Specifically, because total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP is comprised of many individual organic HAP, the reduction of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP by means of a resin stripper (for resins) and a wastewater stripper (for wastewater) will likewise reduce the target individual non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. Further, we are aware of only one means to control organics from resins and process wastewater for this source category and that is through the use of a stripper, which indiscriminately controls all organics, and we are not aware of any VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 other control that would indiscriminately capture all organics from resins and process wastewater. Accordingly, we believe it is reasonable to set a final limit for total non-vinyl organic HAP from resins and process wastewater. Moreover, as some of the commenters recognized, a total non-vinyl organic HAP limit is particularly appropriate given the unique nature of this industry. We set the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP MACT floor limit for stripped resin and process wastewater on specific information provided to the EPA from stripped resin and process wastewater sampling conducted by each company in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request of the PVC industry. In evaluating approaches to setting standards based on the stripped resin and process wastewater data, the EPA received uncontroverted information that a PVC facility can and often does produce many different grades 2 of PVC resin, each having different characteristics based on a different chemical formulation and production recipes and consequently different organic HAP emission profiles, and that different grades can be produced on a daily basis. PVC facilities produce a particular grade of resin according to the needs of their customers and their own business decisions, and based on information provided to the EPA by industry, we conclude that the organic HAP emitted necessarily varies depending on the particular grade of resin produced. In fact, according to one commenter, a particular facility may produce up to a 100 grades of different resins, sometimes producing different resins within a single 24-hour period. Given the large number of resins that may be produced by a particular facility, the associated diversity of chemical formulations and production recipes for these different resin grades, and the resulting differences in organic HAP emission profiles coupled with the fact that the control approaches used to meet the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits are the same as those used to reduce emissions of individual organic HAP species and are the only means of achieving such reductions, we are finalizing total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP standards for stripped resin and process wastewater at PVC production facilities. These standards together with standards for vinyl chloride directly limit all organic HAP from PVC stripped resin 2 ‘‘Grade’’ of PVC resin is more specific than ‘‘type’’ of PVC resin. See definitions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22867 and process wastewater at PVC production facilities, as reported in test/ sampling data available to the EPA. In response to comments, we created five subcategories in the final rule for stripped resins. If, as some of the commenters suggest, we were to set individual organic HAP limits, industry would likely argue that we would have to consider setting standards for a prohibitively large number of subcategories, perhaps as many as there are grades of PVC resin, to ensure that facilities producing grades of PVC resin with incompatible reaction processes and/or chemical inputs were not grouped in an inappropriate manner. In the final rule, we established the additional subcategories in response to comments where we found data in the record to support such subcategorization. Without extensive additional data from industry detailing each of the resin grades they produce, by facility, with attendant emissions information, we are not in a position to evaluate whether additional subcategories are appropriate. As such, we have no basis to establish additional subcategories on this record. As explained previously, we are establishing THC as a surrogate for controlling all organic HAP other than vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF from process vents. However, as a compliance alternative in the final rule, facilities may comply with an equivalent total organic HAP emission limit in lieu of the THC limit for process vents. Such an alternative is appropriate for process vents for the same reasons that total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits are appropriate for stripped resins and process wastewater, as discussed above. (See preamble section III.C for further discussion on the emission limits we are establishing.) We also note that the approach of setting total organic HAP limits for process vents (or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for stripped resins and process wastewater) is consistent with the approach in other NESHAP, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (the MON), which has been successful in limiting, not only total organic HAP, but also individual organic HAP. Finally, one commenter incorrectly states that the EPA set only vinyl chloride limits for monitoring of leaks, process components and wastewater streams. As explained above, the EPA set limits for pollutants, including but not limited to vinyl chloride, emitted from process vents, stripped resins and process wastewater. The commenter incorrectly states that the equipment leak and heat exchanger standards have only a vinyl chloride limit. In the final E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22868 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations rule, applicability of the equipment leak work practice standards is determined based on whether the equipment is in HAP service. In HAP service means that a process component (including equipment) either contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP. Additionally, all equipment leak standards are based on determining VOC leaks from equipment using EPA’s Method 21 and fixing leaks that are detected. VOC are present throughout the PVC process. As such, if you identify a leak of VOC, fixing that leak necessarily will eliminate the VOC emissions and any other HAP emissions. Thus, VOC is a marker that is indisputably present in all PVC streams. A HAP-specific equipment leak definition is not possible because EPA Method 21, which is the only currently approved EPA method to detect equipment leaks, detects VOC, not individual compounds. For heat exchange systems, based on comments received, we are including in the final rule a vinyl chloride leak action level and monitoring requirements because vinyl chloride is always present along with other HAP when process material leaks into cooling water, and, therefore, detection of vinyl chloride and repair of the leak will control the leak for all HAP. However, because some facilities already have programs in place to detect total strippable VOC in cooling water, we are also providing that as an option for detecting leaks into cooling water. Here, the same principle applies in that, controlling the VOC leak will in turn control HAP that leak into the cooling water. Thus, irrespective of whether a source monitors for VOC or vinyl chloride, the result is the same: Controlling any such identified leak will, in turn control any HAP that leak into the cooling water. Finally, with respect to the commenter that suggested that limits for the individual most toxic and most prevalent HAP should be developed, the commenter fails to recognize that EPA has authority to use surrogates to address HAP. The EPA has appropriately identified the HAP emitted from the PVC source category and set standards for those HAP, including using surrogates where appropriate. Comment: Several commenters raised issues with the term ‘‘HAP’’ and related terms, such as ‘‘total organic HAP’’ and ‘‘total HAP.’’ Two commenters stated that, though the EPA refers to sampling and specific limits for HAP and organic HAP, there is no definition of HAP, organic HAP, or total organic HAP VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 provided for process vents, stripped resin or other emission sources. Two commenters stated that these subsets of HAP should be restricted and defined because the PVC manufacturing process does not have the potential to emit the entire list of HAP designated by the CAA. Another commenter requested that a subset of the complete list of total organic HAP be defined specifically for suspension type process facilities. Two commenters submitted a subset of the complete list of organic HAP that they believe is appropriate to define in the rule. The commenters submitted 19 HAP that should be subjected to a stripped resin limitation through the total organic HAP approach and 11 additional HAP that were not detected, but were analyzed and reported as nondetect. Response: The term ‘‘hazardous air pollutant’’ (HAP) is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as ‘‘any air pollutant listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act’’. It follows directly that ‘‘total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP’’ means all organic HAP except vinyl chloride. The terms ‘‘organic HAP’’ and ‘‘total organic HAP’’ are commonly understood terms meaning HAP that are carbon based, individually or in total, respectively. In the proposed rule, we did not limit the definition of total organic HAP for process vents to a specific set of organic HAP or total HAP for stripped resins and wastewater to a specific set of total HAP that are emitted by the PVC industry. Part of our intent through the issuance of the required process vent testing and resin sampling under our CAA section 114 authority was to obtain data on which HAP were in fact used, produced, and/or emitted from PVC production facilities. We have considered the commenters’ suggestions on requiring compliance based on a subset of HAP, i.e., those HAP that have the potential to be emitted from PVC facilities. Based on our analysis of the process vent testing data, resin sampling data, and responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request, we recognize that the industry does not emit all HAP, but rather only a subset of HAP, primarily organic HAP, as discussed above. We reviewed the commenters’ lists of HAP for stripped resin and compared those lists to the sampling data submitted. We confirmed that PVC stripped resin and process wastewater has been shown to contain or may contain 30 of the HAP listed under section 112(b) of the CAA, in addition to vinyl chloride, and so we are requiring facilities to analyze, at a minimum, those 30 organic HAP and vinyl chloride, in both stripped resins and process wastewater samples. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Although these 30 HAP are all the organic HAP we identified in the data available to the EPA, it is not appropriate to set individual HAP limits because the combination and quantity of each of these 30 HAP vary depending on the wide variety of resin grades produced within the PVC industry. As discussed previously, it would be impractical to set individual HAP limits specific to the potential large number of subcategories that would be necessary to account for the more than 100 different resin grades produced. We are also requiring facilities to develop a facility-specific list of HAP for both stripped resins and process wastewater. The facility-specific list of HAP must include all HAP expected to be present in stripped resin and process wastewater samples, including any HAP not listed in table 10 of the final rule. Our analysis is documented in the memorandum, Analysis of HAP in Stripped Resins and Wastewater for the Final PVC Rule. Under this final rule, to meet the stripped resin and process wastewater total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits, you must test for those 30 HAP that are known to possibly be present in the PVC production process based on all the data available to the EPA, and, in addition, sources must test for HAP beyond those 30 that facilities are aware of based on the resin grades they produce. We are including those compounds to ensure that they would be included in the facility’s calculation of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP should those compounds become present in the process in detectable quantities. For process vents, demonstrating compliance with the THC limit does not require testing based on a list of specific HAP as EPA Method 25A measures THC and not speciated HAP. D. Subcategories Comment: Two commenters contended that the EPA should use data from stand-alone PVC facilities to establish the process vent emission limits. Another commenter asserted that the agency recognized that it was important to set standards based on PVC-only vent gas flows and required industry to isolate and burn PVC-only vent streams at co-located facilities. The commenter added that thermal oxidizers at stand-alone EDC/VCM plants or colocated with PVC plants tend to be much larger than those at stand-alone PVC units. The commenter stated that to produce data in response to the CAA section 114 testing required for PVC facilities, large volumes of natural gas were burned to treat the small PVC-only vent streams to make up for the other E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations streams, such as EDC or VCM, that had been tied off as instructed by the CAA section 114 survey, resulting in a nonrepresentative emission profile. The commenter noted that the Vinyl Institute Working Group submitted to the EPA a list of facilities (stand-alone PVC plants) that it believes is appropriate to use in setting the MACT floor for process vents. Response: This final rule contains two subcategories for process vents: PVConly process vents and PVC-combined process vents. In response to comments submitted by the industry and others, based on our review of those comments and a subsequent review of the testing data submitted in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request for the PVC industry, we determined that there are significant differences in the size and type of process vents that originate from PVCPU and process vents from PVCPU that are combined with process vents from other source categories, such as EDC/VCM or other HON sources, prior to control. The differences in the HAP concentrations in the process vent streams arise from the fundamental differences in the products, unit operations, and the manufacturing process of the source categories that are typically co-located with and/or that share a control device with a PVC affected source. Examples include EDC and VCM manufacturing processes, which are commonly co-located with a PVC production process and manufacture the primary raw materials (EDC is used to produce VCM) used in the production of PVC resin. Additionally, the average control device volumetric outlet flow rate is 2,100 percent greater for process vents from PVCPU that are combined with process vents from other source categories compared to process vents that originate only from PVCPU, a significant difference in size. Therefore, in the final rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: PVConly and PVC-combined. PVC-only process vents comprise process vent streams that originate solely from a PVC affected source. We agree with commenters who suggested that the testing conducted using large volumes of natural gas to treat these small PVConly vent streams did not produce a representative emission profile. Therefore, we did not include those tests results to determine the PVC-only MACT floors for process vents. PVCcombined process vents comprise process vent streams that originate from a PVCPU and that are combined or are co-controlled with process vent streams VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 that originate from other source categories, such as EDC or VCM production processes. Details on the determination of MACT floors and limits for process vents are documented in the technical memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. Comment: Two commenters contended that PolyOne’s vent gas absorbers are recovery devices and not control devices because they capture and recycle vinyl chloride back into the production process, rather than treating it as a waste. The commenters added that, because PolyOne’s vent gas absorbers do not operate at elevated temperatures or combust the vinyl chloride, they do not result in the formation of additional HAP or generation of unwanted by-products, such as CDD/CDF and greenhouse gases. The commenters contended that the proposed MACT would require backup thermal oxidizers to be used continuously. The commenter added that large amounts of energy will be consumed and greenhouse gasses emitted in an effort to control a tiny amount of VOC. The commenter concluded by arguing that consideration should be given to the overall air impact of operating backup thermal oxidizers continuously. Another commenter stated that the flow rate out of PolyOne’s absorbers is two orders of magnitude less than the emissions flow rate from control device technology that includes thermal oxidizers and scrubbers combined. The commenters stated that the proposed MACT should take emissions rates into consideration and not solely rely on emissions concentrations when establishing limits for recovery devices. One commenter added that for sites equipped with vent gas absorber recovery technology, thermal oxidizers are necessary only in the event of an outage or malfunction with the operation of the vent gas absorbers to ensure that any vinyl chloride, which is not recycled back to the process, is destroyed. Response: The rule contains emission limits for process vents that apply at the point where the gaseous stream is released to the atmosphere. While we recognize that a vent gas absorber at the commenter’s facilities recover vinyl chloride, those absorbers also have stacks that emit to the atmosphere and would therefore be subject to the process vent limit. The rule does not require that affected sources use a specific control or recovery device to PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22869 meet the process vent limits, and the final emission standards are not based on whether a vent gas absorber is classified as a recovery device or control device. An affected source may use any control device to reduce the process vent emissions to meet the required limits. We considered setting alternative formats for the process vent emission limits. However, we did not have sufficient information provided from industry on process vent stream flow rates and concentrations to develop or evaluate other formats, such as mass emission rates. Comment: Many commenters contended that the EPA should further subcategorize resins. One commenter stated that the EPA should recognize that resin recipes, production processes and equipment required for end product utility, govern the emissions and the ability to strip each type of resin. The commenter stated that the data provided by the Vinyl Institute demonstrate the differences between production processes and PVC morphology and particle size of the PVC products manufactured. The commenter added that these differences equate to differences in ability to steam strip the resin of vinyl chloride, among other things. Several commenters stated that copolymer resins are a completely different chemistry from homopolymer resins and should be regulated through their own subcategory. The commenters requested that the EPA subcategorize stripped resin by differences in chemistry (co-monomers), raw material inputs, process equipment, resin types and grades or other factors, provided such subcategorization is reasonable. One commenter objected to the agency’s proposal to subcategorize resins as ‘‘bulk’’ and ‘‘dispersion,’’ with all other resins, including copolymers, suspension blending and suspension resins relegated to an ‘‘other resin’’ subcategory. The commenter stated that the EPA’s proposed subcategorization scheme is textually inconsistent and will likely cause regulatory confusion within the industry. The commenter stated the agency’s proposed subcategories ignore critical differences in processing equipment, material inputs and resin morphology that have a critical and differentiating impact on the HAP profile of the various resins. The commenter contended that, at a minimum, the EPA should organize stripped resin limits along the following subcategories for homopolymers: Suspension, dispersion, bulk and blending; and for copolymers: Suspension, dispersion, blending and solution. The commenter added that by E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22870 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations definition, ‘‘copolymers’’ were considered distinct enough from polyvinyl chloride polymers that the EPA used the conjunctive ‘‘and copolymers’’ to describe the source category being addressed here. One commenter added that the EPA should subcategorize copolymers by the resin type because they are capable of being manufactured in different processes (suspension, dispersion and solution) that present completely different HAP emission profiles. The commenter stated that the general class of copolymers requires differentiation from the homopolymer category. The commenter added that within this copolymer class there are different resin types (suspension, dispersion, blending and solution) that require subcategorization similar to homopolymers. The commenter continued that for each resin type, however, the choice of co-monomer creates different HAP profiles affecting the HAP analyzed; co-monomers are chosen, based on the end product characteristics specified by the customer. The commenter added that the vinylidene chloride copolymer is a highly crystalline polymer, making the removal or stripping of vinyl chloride from the resin more difficult than typical PVC polymers. The commenter stated that, to require its facility to meet this proposed standard for all other resins, is technically infeasible, based on the unique chemistry used. Several commenters contended that dispersion resins should be regulated separately from suspension blending resins. The commenters stated that dispersion resins and suspension blending resins should be included in the MACT as their own categories due to the very different nature of both the manufacturing technologies used and the resins produced. The commenter added that suspension blending resins are a type of specialty resin used in flooring, automotive interiors and synthetic leather products. The commenters stated that the proposed MACT does not specifically address suspension blending resins, leaving this class of resin manufacturing unclear. Further, for the same reasons discussed for dispersion resins, the commenters contended that suspension blending resins require a separate subcategory under the proposed MACT. The commenters asserted that suspension blending resins have very different characteristics than generic suspension resins, including smooth surfaces and different particle sizes of distribution, all of which present different challenges when stripping vinyl chloride from a different resin. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 One commenter added that the previous 30-day data submitted pursuant to the EPA’s CAA section 114 request for PVC facilities were not representative of blending PVC resin alone. The commenter stated that the data were for suspension, including suspension blending PVC resin. The commenter asserted that samples for regular suspension resin were composited with blending PVC resin samples to get one daily suspension analysis rather than analyzing the samples separately. The commenter stated that both categories react to steam stripping quite differently and truly are different products. One commenter submitted data to support their assertion that suspension blending PVC resin, because of its unique morphology, could not possibly be stripped to the levels proposed for suspension general purpose resin. Two commenters argued that further subcategories of suspension resins should either be established or considered. One commenter requested that the EPA subcategorize the emission limits for the ‘‘other resin’’ category into the following subcategories: Low molecular weight (LMW), high molecular weight (HMW) and general purpose. Response: In the proposed rule, limits were developed for new and existing sources for three subcategories of PVC resin: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin and (3) all other resins. Based on our review of the public comments and our concurrent review and analysis of the additional data on the vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resins submitted by the PVC industry, we determined that the data clearly show that there are significant differences in the concentrations of vinyl chloride and other HAP that remain in the various types of resins following stripping. The differences in the concentrations of vinyl chloride and other HAP that remain in the various resin types are a direct consequence of several factors related to the overall process to produce each resin type. These factors include: The different raw materials necessary to produce each resin type, the unique process chemistry required to produce each resin type, the process conditions required to produce each resin type and differences in the morphology of the resin particles following polymerization. The current technology that is used to remove residual vinyl chloride and HAP from polymerized resin is steam stripping. The conditions under which steam stripping is performed are unique to the resin type being produced and the ability to strip, or remove the maximum amount of PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 residual vinyl chloride and HAP from the resin types, is constrained by the resin morphology, product quality and customer end-use requirements. The different resin types all differ in morphology, particle size and porosity, which all affect the ability to remove residual, or unreacted VCM and other HAP from the resin matrix. For a steam stripping unit that is operating as designed to remove the maximum amount of residual vinyl chloride and HAP from polymerized resin, simply adding more steam to that unit may result in some additional removal of vinyl chloride and other HAP, but the additional heat from the steam will degrade the resin and thus negatively affect the resin quality such that it will not meet customer or performance specifications. Therefore, for the final rule, we are responding to the comments and information submitted to the EPA by dividing the limits for stripped resins into two general groupings: (1) Homopolymers and (2) copolymers. Homopolymer resins are further divided into four subcategories: (1) Suspension resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin and (4) bulk resin. Some commenters suggested further subcategorizing copolymer resins; however, the data submitted by industry to the EPA did not include sufficient specificity that would allow developing additional subcategories of copolymer resin types. Therefore, copolymer resins are not further subcategorized in the final rule. Other commenters suggested additional subcategories based on molecular weight, grade and other physical properties. However, we did not develop additional subcategories for various resin grades (e.g., LMW, HMW or general purpose) because this could have potentially resulted in hundreds or thousands of resin subcategories, each with its own MACT analysis, making such an approach impractical to establish and administer. E. MACT Floor Calculation Following proposal, industry submitted additional data and information on several emission sources: (1) Process vents, (2) stripped resins, (3) process wastewater and (4) gasholders. For process vents, stripped resins and process wastewater, we received additional data for organic compounds and HCl. Metal HAP are not present in the PVC production process. The post-proposal data submittals are available in the docket. The data were used to revise the MACT floors and impacts. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1. Additional Data Submitted Process Vents Industry provided data clarifying which PVC facilities are co-located with EDC and VCM production or other source categories and which facilities are stand-alone PVC producers. Industry also provided clarification of the conditions (e.g., percentage contribution of the PVCPU to the total process vent stream) during stack testing conducted in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request sent to PVC companies. Industry identified which facilities typically cocontrol non-PVC streams. The EPA also received results of emissions tests conducted for EDC and VCM production facilities, some of which are co-located and co-controlled with PVC production facilities, as required by our March 16, 2011, CAA section 114 survey and testing request for VCM/EDC production companies. The CAA section 114 request required that emission data be collected by testing the VCM/EDC process vents for vinyl chloride, dioxin/ furan and THC emissions. The results of emissions tests from the co-located and co-controlled facilities included data for PVC-combined process vents (e.g., any VCM/EDC process vent that also contains a PVC process stream) that were included in the MACT floor analysis for PVC-combined process vents. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Stripped Resin Industry provided a database containing 4 years of daily average vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resins, determined by using EPA Method 107 for all but two PVC production facilities. The provided database contained information for four specific resin types: (1) Suspension, (2) dispersion, (3) suspension blending and (4) vinyl acetate copolymer (VACO). Industry also submitted an updated 30-day resin sampling concentration database for total HAP, based on using various EPA SW–846 Methods and providing additional specificity on resin types and corrections to previously submitted data; VACO and suspension blending data were separated from dispersion and suspension data, respectively. Another commenter submitted new vinyl chloride and total organic HAP data for suspension blending resin as a result of additional sampling and testing performed by the company independent of the EPA’s CAA section 114 request for the PVC production industry. Additionally, results that were reported as composites of two or more resin types were identified by resin VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 type, and previous results from the OxyVinyls suspension plants that were indicated as a reporting limit (RL) were changed to non-detect. Vinylidene/vinyl chloride copolymer concentration data from Dow Chemical were also added to the database. Wastewater Commenters submitted approximately 1 year of vinyl chloride concentration data at the outlet of wastewater strippers for nine PVC production facilities. All concentrations were obtained using EPA Method 107. The data were provided on a varying basis across facilities (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). Gasholders In response to industry comments, we requested and received annual emissions estimates for small and large sized gasholders. In addition to submitting comments regarding suggested control and work practice options for gasholders, industry also provided estimates of the capital cost and emission reductions for work practices that could be used to reduce emissions from gasholders, i.e., using floating objects. Equipment Leaks At proposal, we ranked the LDAR programs used at each affected PVC source from most stringent to least stringent, based on the leak definitions, monitoring frequencies, control requirements and repair requirements reported in the responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request. We then identified the LDAR programs employed by the bestperforming five sources. The results of this analysis showed that three out of the best-performing five sources comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2 controls. Therefore, we proposed that existing and new affected sources comply with the LDAR program requirements of the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks-Control Level 2 Standards, subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63. During the comment period, one of the facilities that had responded that they complied with subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 (Shintech Freeport), stated that the survey response was in error, and the facility is actually complying with the equipment leak requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. This change results in a revision to the MACT floor for existing major sources, which is discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22871 2. MACT Floor Revisions In the final rule, we revised the MACT floor-based emission limits for process vents, stripped resins and wastewater, as discussed in the technical memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. Process Vents In the final rule we calculated the MACT floors for the two process vent subcategories, PVC-only and PVCcombined, accounting for variability using the UPL calculation. At proposal, a 99-percent UPL calculation was used where the m value (representing the number of test runs used in the compliance average) was 30 for the THC compliance limit option. For the final rule, we changed the m value to 3 because 3 THC test runs using EPA Method 25A will be performed over the 5-year period with which compliance will be averaged. Therefore, an m value of 3 for the THC UPL calculation is appropriate. In the final rule, we revised the procedure for identifying a representative method detection level (RDL) for vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP for PVConly and PVC-combined process vents. At proposal, we determined the RDL by identifying the highest test-specific MDL reported by the top 5 bestperforming facilities for each pollutant in each subcategory that was also less than the calculated average emission concentration of those top 5 bestperforming facilities. For the final rule, the RDL for vinyl chloride and total organic HAP was determined by identifying the available reported pollutant-specific MDL values for the top 5 best-performing units regardless of any subcategory. However, the data set of reported pollutantspecific MDL values included MDL values only from reference methods for new source performance standards (NSPS) and NESHAP rulemakings since they are the established compliance methods for air pollutants and have a more robust quality assurance procedure. For our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 testing request, other test methods besides reference methods for NSPS/NESHAP (i.e., EPA SW–846 Method 0031) were used to account for all the possible HAP that could potentially be emitted from process vents. Emission data collected as a result of performance testing with nonreference methods for NSPS/NESHAP E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22872 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations were used in the MACT floor analyses since the resulting values could be measured using reference methods. From that combined pool of MDL data, we calculated the arithmetic mean value. We then called the resulting mean of the MDL values the RDL. For HCl and CDD/CDF we used RDL values based on data collected for several hundred EPA Method 23 and EPA Method 26A emissions tests from various industries, a much larger data set than the one compiled only from PVCPU testing. The RDL values calculated from the larger data sets are more representative of the inherent measurement variability both within and between testing companies. The RDL values were determined by the same procedure described above for vinyl chloride and total organic HAP. All of the available reported pollutantspecific MDL values for the bestperforming facilities regardless of any subcategory were identified and an arithmetic mean was calculated from the resulting data set and determined to be the RDL. For THC, we determined that the RDL for EPA Method 25A for a 10-ppm propane span would be 0.5 ppm propane. We arrived at this RDL by surveying the typical flame ionization analyzers in use by the testing community and evaluating the required method criteria in EPA Method 25A. The survey of the instruments yielded several vender stated instrument detection limits from 0.01 to 0.5 ppm as carbon with one independent third party degermation of 0.8 ppm as carbon. In addition, several instruments’ minimum reportable resolution is 0.1 ppm as propane. The method criteria allows for a 3-percent zero and span drift during performance runs and an initial criteria of 5 percent of the calibration gas. The sum allowable calibration error and drift would be approximately 0.475 ppm as propane (using a 3.5-ppm propane span gas), which would be higher than the instrumental detection limits. For vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP, the MACT floor emission limit was compared to 3 times the RDL. As in the proposed rule, if 3 times the RDL was greater than the calculated MACT floor emission limit, we concluded that the MACT floor emission limit does not account entirely for measurement variability and, therefore, we used the value equal to 3 times the RDL in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. The variability analysis conducted for the final rule is contained in the memorandum titled Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. Stripped Resin Vinyl chloride and total HAP limits for stripped resins were calculated at proposal using a 99-percent UPL calculation and 30 days of vinyl chloride and other HAP data from all facilities that conducted resin sampling and analysis as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request for the PVC industry. In developing the proposal, we requested sources subject to the CAA section 114 request provide information on the residual compounds in the resin leaving the stripper on a mass-basis. After the mass-based sampling results were submitted to us, the Vinyl Institute, on behalf of the PVC industry, provided a database of the concentration values that were used by the facilities to convert their concentrations to massbased values. For the proposed rule, we calculated limits for dispersion resin, based on the reported mass-based values for each HAP present in the resin, which we then converted to concentrations, based on dispersion resin production. The proposed limits for all other resin types (i.e., suspension resin) were calculated, based on the originally measured vinyl chloride concentration values that were reported by each suspension resin facility and compiled into the concentration database that was supplied to us by the Vinyl Institute. The limit for bulk resin was calculated using the vinyl chloride and other HAP concentrations provided by the single bulk resin manufacturing facility in their response to the CAA section 114 request for the PVC industry. Variability was not assessed in the calculation of the limit for bulk resin because the data for vinyl chloride and total organic HAP consisted of one unique value each. We received numerous comments on our approach at proposal for calculating stripped resin limits, which included comments on the subcategories, the use of mass-based values for determining the limits for dispersion resin, the use of vinyl chloride concentration data collected via EPA Method 107 in calculating a total organic HAP limit where a different test method was used for other non-vinyl organic chloride HAP, our approach for accounting for variability in the stripped resin limits and the m value in the UPL calculation for both vinyl chloride and total organic HAP. During the public comment period, the Vinyl Institute provided us with an PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 updated database, as described above, of the vinyl chloride and other HAP concentration values that were measured as the resin was exiting the stripper(s) and that were not then converted by the facilities to mass values. We also received supplemental resin sampling data from one PVC facility (PolyOne) and further information regarding their previous data submittals. In consideration of the comments received and our subsequent review and analysis of the submitted data, we made several changes to the limits for stripped resins. No additional data were provided from the single bulk resin manufacturer, so the final limits for bulk resin were recalculated only to remove vinyl chloride from the calculation for the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit. Variability was not assessed in the calculation of the limit for bulk resin because the data for vinyl chloride and total HAP consisted of one unique value each. For the final rule, we used the original concentration values, as measured during the required emission testing of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request, and analyzed it as the basis for setting the MACT floors for suspension, dispersion, suspension blending and copolymer resin. This provided a consistent basis to compare concentrations of vinyl chloride and other HAP and calculate limits on a consistent basis. At proposal, the vinyl chloride limits for all subcategories except for bulk resin were calculated using data obtained from EPA SW–846 Method 8260B and a representative detection limit analysis was performed, based on those data. For the final rule, vinyl chloride limits were determined by using a percentile calculated from 4 years of vinyl chloride concentration data from the top five sources that were obtained by sampling using EPA Method 107 and provided by the Vinyl Institute. The change in methodology was appropriate because the 4-year data set was sufficiently large (between 523 and 5,165 data points total for the calculation of each limit, depending on the resin subcategory, and not including bulk resin) that it is not necessary to estimate variability by use of the UPL equation. Rather, by using a percentile, variability is accounted for directly from the vinyl chloride data set comprised of the lowest emitting sources. Percentiles represent the specified slice of the sample data and unlike confidence and prediction intervals, they are distribution-free. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of vinyl chloride concentration values reported were above the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations detection limit for EPA Method 107 and therefore, a representative detection limit analysis did not need to be performed. In the proposed rule, the total HAP limits for the stripped resin subcategories included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the final rule, vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from the total HAP limit calculations, resulting in limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for all subcategories of stripped resin. This was appropriate because the data used to develop the MACT floors and limits for vinyl chloride in stripped resin were based on EPA Method 107. While vinyl chloride can be analyzed using EPA SW–846 Method 8260B, a total HAP limit that includes vinyl chloride analyzed using that method would be inconsistent with our separate limit for vinyl chloride alone, which is based on data obtained using EPA Method 107. Since we have developed a separate vinyl chloride limit, it is not necessary to include vinyl chloride as part of the total HAP limit for stripped resins. Because different test methods were used to develop the emission standards, we are requiring compliance testing and sampling based on the different test methods to demonstrate compliance with those standards. The differences in the test methods (e.g., the way that samples are collected and analyzed) caused the vinyl chloride emissions to differ by orders of magnitude when the same sample was tested using the two different methods. At proposal, variability was assessed for total HAP using a 99-percent UPL calculation with the m value set at 30 to represent 30 single daily total HAP values. For the final rule, variability was assessed for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the 99-percent UPL calculation; however, because we are requiring compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for all subcategories to be based on a single 24-hour period taken once per month, we calculated the UPL for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP using an m value of 1. For the final rule, we revised the procedure for identifying an RDL for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. At proposal, we determined the RDL by identifying the highest test-specific MDL reported by the top 5 bestperforming facilities for total HAP in each subcategory that was also less than the calculated average concentration of those top 5 best-performing facilities. For the final rule, the RDL for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP was determined by identifying all of the available MDL values for the top 5 best- VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 performing facilities regardless of any subcategory. From that combined pool of MDL data, we calculated the arithmetic mean value. We then called the resulting mean of the MDL values the RDL. As in the proposed rule, if 3 times the RDL was greater than the calculated limit, we concluded that the MACT floor limit does not account entirely for measurement variability and, therefore, we used the value equal to 3 times the RDL in place of the calculated MACT floor limit. For the final rule, we excluded: (1) Copolymer resin data from Dow Chemical’s Midland, Michigan, facility due to the lack of a sampling and analysis report documenting the analysis results, (2) data from Georgia Gulf’s Aberdeen, Mississippi, and Plaquemine, Louisiana, facilities because the data reported from analysis using a modification to EPA SW–846 Method 8260B could not be compared to data reported from other PVC facilities that analyzed resin concentrations using an unmodified EPA SW–846 Method 8260B and (3) selected reported HAP concentrations from PolyOne’s Henry, Illinois, facility due to unexpectedly high reported detection limits that we determined were inaccurate when compared to the reported detection limits from other facilities. Wastewater For the proposed rule, the wastewater vinyl chloride concentration limits were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation with an m value of 1 to represent monthly compliance, based on a single sampling event. The limits were calculated, based on data provided by facilities in their CAA section 114 survey responses. These data represented a mix of sampling data, engineering estimates and mass balance calculations. Post proposal, industry submitted 1 year’s worth of vinyl chloride sampling data results from wastewater strippers at several facilities. For the final rule, we recalculated the monthly vinyl chloride concentration limits using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described above, but the limits were calculated based on the actual vinyl chloride sampling data provided by the industry. We used the UPL to assess variability in the calculation of the final limits for process wastewater. Despite the substantially larger vinyl chloride concentration data set provided by the industry during the public comment period, the percentile approach was not used as it was for the stripped resin vinyl chloride limits because the final data set was not sufficiently large (60 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22873 data points total, or 12 monthly vinyl chloride values for each of the top five performing facilities) and we had to make assumptions about the distribution of the data. In the proposed rule, total HAP emission limits were based on a beyondthe-floor option of complying with the HON flow rate and concentration values. For the final rule, we calculated a total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission level at the MACT floor, based on non-vinyl chloride organic HAP data reported by PVC facilities and using the same calculation methodology used to determine the MACT floor vinyl chloride emission limit with compliance demonstrated on a monthly basis. In the proposed rule, the total HAP limit for wastewater included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the final rule vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit calculation, resulting in total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for process wastewater. This approach was appropriate since we are requiring different test methods to demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits. The determination of the RDL value for vinyl chloride was revised for the final rule as previously described for process vents. Industry did not provide non-detect data for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP; therefore, nondetect data were not incorporated in the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit calculation. Equipment Leaks Based on changes to information reported by Shintech Freeport, as discussed above, we revised the MACT floor analysis for equipment leaks at existing sources. The results of this analysis showed that two out of the best-performing five sources comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2 requirements, and the remaining three complied with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. For the final rule, the MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks at existing sources, taking the median of the best-controlled five sources, is compliance with subpart V. Comment: One commenter stated that in the proposed PVC MACT, new source emission limits for process vents, the resin stripper and wastewater were based on the best-performing emission source. However, the commenter stated that the data sets used to establish the new source MACT floor were not adequate or representative of the best performance from the source. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations The commenter added that the new source process vent MACT floor was established by selecting the best performance of each individual HAP from all facilities. The commenter asserted that, as a result, no current facility can meet the control level represented by the proposed new source MACT. The commenter requested that the EPA re-evaluate the feasibility of the new source MACT floor analysis for ongoing, continuous compliance. Response: At proposal and in this final rule, we used the data available to us to conduct the new source MACT floor analyses. A reasonable interpretation of CAA section 112(d)(3) is that MACT floors may be established on a HAP-by-HAP basis, so that there can be different pools of best performers for each HAP. Indeed, as illustrated below, the total facility approach is not only not compelled by the statutory language, but can lead to results so arbitrary that the approach may simply not be legally permissible. CAA section 112(d)(3) is not explicit as to whether the MACT floor is to be based on the performance of an entire source or on the performance achieved in controlling particular HAP. Congress specified in CAA section 112(d)(3) the minimum level of emission reduction that could satisfy the requirement to adopt MACT. For new sources, this floor level is to be ‘‘the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.’’ For existing sources, the floor level is to be ‘‘the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources’’ for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or ‘‘the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources’’ for categories and subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. The language of the CAA does not address whether floor levels can be established HAP-by-HAP or by any other means. The reference to ‘‘sources’’ does not lead to the assumption the commenters make that the bestperforming sources can only be the best performing sources for the entire suite of regulated HAP. Instead, the language can be reasonably interpreted as referring to the source as a whole or to performance as to a particular HAP. Similarly, the reference in the new source MACT floor provision to ‘‘emission control achieved by the best controlled similar source’’ can mean emission control as to a particular HAP or emission control achieved by a source as a whole. The EPA’s long-standing interpretation of the CAA is that new source (as well as existing source) VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 MACT floors are to be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.3 One reason for this interpretation is that a contrary approach could yield least common denominator floors—that is, floors reflecting mediocre or no control rather than what the best performers have achieved. See 76 FR at 15622, March 21, 2011; 61 FR at 173687, April 19, 1996; 62 FR at 48363–64, September 15, 1997 (same approach adopted under the very similar language of CAA section 129(a)(2)). Such an approach would allow a source that is not the best-performer for certain pollutants nonetheless to be considered the best performer overall, including for those same pollutants for which it is demonstrably not the best performer. It is even conceivable that the worst performing source for a pollutant could be considered the best performer for all pollutants, a result Congress could not have intended. For example, if the best-performing five sources for vinyl chloride were also the worst performing sources for HCl and the best performers for HCl were the worst performers for vinyl chloride, under a total facility approach the floor would end up not reflecting best performance for HCl and vinyl chloride. In such a situation, the EPA would have to make a value judgment as to which pollutant reductions were most critical to decide which sources are bestcontrolled. See Petitioners Brief in Medical Waste Institute et al. v. EPA, No. 09–1297 (DC Cir.) pointing out, in this context, that ‘‘the best performers for some pollutants are the worst performers for others’’ (p. 34) and ‘‘[s]ome of the best performers for certain pollutants are among the worst performers for others.’’ Such value judgments are antithetical to the direction of the statute at the MACT floor-setting stage. The central purpose of the amended CAA section 112(d) provisions was to apply strict technology-based emission controls on HAP. See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 952, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. An interpretation that the floor level of control must be limited by the performance of devices that only control some of these pollutants effectively guts the standards by including worse performers in the averaging process, whereas the EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the average performance of best-performing sources. Because Congress has not 3 We have done precisely that in this rule by setting emission standards for vinyl chloride, THC (or total organic HAP), total non-vinyl chlorideorganic HAP, CDD/CDF and HCI. See preamble section V.C. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 spoken to the precise question at issue, and the agency’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The EPA notes, however, that if optimized performance for different HAP is not technologically possible due to mutually inconsistent control technologies (for example, if HCl performance decreased as organics reduction is optimized), then this would have to be taken into account by the EPA in establishing a floor (or floors). The Senate Report indicates that if certain types of otherwise needed controls are mutually exclusive, the EPA is to optimize the part of the standard providing the most environmental protection. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 168 (although, as noted, the bill accompanying this Report contained no floor provisions). It should be emphasized, however, that the District of Columbia Circuit has stated that ‘‘the fact that no plant has been shown to be able to meet all of the limitations does not demonstrate that all the limitations are not achievable.’’ Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 885 F. 2d at 264 (upholding technology-based standards based on best performance for each pollutant by different plants, where at least one plant met each of the limitations but no single plant met all of them). Such an approach would not meet the requirements of the CAA. For these reasons, the EPA’s approach is the appropriate methodology for developing new source MACT floors and no further reevaluation is necessary. Comment: Several commenters argued that the EPA calculated the MACT floor for vinyl chloride in stripped resin using data based on one analytical method (EPA Method 8260B) that typically underreports vinyl chloride and requires compliance with a different test method (EPA Method 107) developed specifically for vinyl chloride. Response: We agree with the commenters that there was a tension in the proposed rule between the data used to establish the limits and the test methods required for compliance. We specifically solicited comment on this issue in the proposed rule. After consideration of information received after the proposed rule, including the potential benefits and drawbacks of both EPA SW–846 Method 8260B and EPA Method 107 in terms of vinyl chloride analysis, we conclude that EPA Method 107 is more appropriate for developing MACT floors and for determining E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations compliance with such standards for vinyl chloride in stripped resins. EPA Method 107 was specifically developed for use in the PVC industry and is the standard method for determining vinyl chloride concentrations in not only stripped resin samples, but also wastewater samples. The method provides for better extraction of the vinyl chloride and, therefore, produces more reliable and accurate, albeit nominally higher, concentration results. EPA SW–846 Method 8260B also allows for the analysis of vinyl chloride, but the method was not specifically developed for measuring vinyl chloride in PVC resin samples and so has lower reliability and accuracy compared to EPA Method 107 in this context. Based on our analysis of data collected on vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resin samples analyzed using both EPA Method 107 and EPA SW–846 Method 8260B, concentration values obtained using EPA Method 107 are consistently higher than the concentration values obtained on the same resin samples using EPA SW–846 Method 8260B. As such, compliance with a vinyl chloride limit based on data obtained using EPA SW– 846 Method 8260B could not necessarily be determined based on compliance data obtained using EPA Method 107, making the Method 107 data inappropriate as a required basis for determining compliance with the limit based on data obtained from EPA SW–846 Method 8260B. In the final rule, we calculated the MACT floor-based limits for vinyl chloride in stripped resins based on sampling data collected using EPA Method 107. We also require demonstration of compliance with the stripped resin vinyl chloride limits using EPA Method 107. In the final rule, we have also revised the stripped resin and wastewater limits for total organic HAP to separate vinyl chloride from those limits, resulting in total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits. As discussed above, EPA Method 107 is the preferred method for determining vinyl chloride concentrations in PVC stripped resin and wastewater. The EPA believes it would be inappropriate and inaccurate to determine and require compliance with total HAP standards by combining results from the two different methods because the EPA Method 107 data for vinyl chloride would be artificially overweighted compared to the data for non-vinyl chloride organic HAP based on analysis using EPA SW– 846 methods, including Method 8260B, based on the significant differences in VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 sampling results when using the methods on the same samples. Comment: Several commenters stated that the data used to set the MACT floor are not based on normal operating conditions. One commenter stated that testing pursuant to the CAA section 114 request was conducted at the PVC production units in late 2009 and early 2010. The commenter contended that, during this period, the industry was operating by as much as 34 percent below its maximum production rates over the prior 3 years. One commenter contended that the test conditions were not representative of normal maximum operating conditions for a stand-alone PVC producer under which these values were determined and the EPA incorporated test results from much larger thermal oxidizers operated well under their maximum design operating conditions. To enable compliance with a reasonably proposed standard, the commenter stated that the EPA should revise the final rule to allow for new sources to come into compliance 3 years after the final rule is promulgated. One commenter contended that the proposed limits for vinyl chloride, total organic HAP and HCl need to be factored-up to allow facilities to operate at maximum production rates. The commenter added that it is necessary to factor up proposed limits because the EPA’s compressed schedule for gathering data did not allow facilities to test at maximum or near maximum operating rates. The commenter stated the rule, as proposed, requires facilities to perform compliance tests under hypothetical or actual worst case conditions (i.e., maximum operating rates), which is not the same conditions used to generate the data that set the standard for proposed vents. The commenter proposed, as an alternative, that industry should be allowed to test under the same conditions that were present during the stack tests conducted to comply with the CAA section 114 request. Commenters indicated that tests done at the OxyVinyls Deer Park and Pasadena facilities and Formosa Plastics’ Baton Rouge facility were conducted under abnormal operating scenarios that are not indicative of their normal operation. The commenters provided information on how the operating conditions during the test differed than at normal conditions. The commenters contended that the MACT floors should be calculated without these facilities. The commenter contended that data from that period are inappropriate for setting the MACT floor for maximum representative operating conditions. One commenter stated that PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22875 during the data request for the MACT floor study, the EPA asked for data (stack testing and 30-day monitoring) related to ‘‘normal operations’’ in order to set up the MACT floor. However, the commenter asserted that the proposed rule set up limits for compliance (standards and operating limits) that are to be based on ‘‘maximum operations’’ from the subject facilities. The commenter contended that since the MACT floor data are different from what is expected from facilities for compliance with the standard, the EPA should either re-analyze the MACT floor data to revise the proposed regulatory requirements or ask the facilities for additional, and more specific, relevant data regarding maximum operating conditions. Other commenters contended that the EPA should have accounted for the testing variance that occurred by sampling and testing during a period of lower throughput for the industry. The commenters requested that the EPA adjust for lower production levels in the final rule. Response: We agree with commenters that the OxyVinyls Deer Park and Formosa Baton Rouge facilities have PVC-combined process vents and should not be included in the PVC-only MACT floor calculation. OxyVinyls provided additional stack test information for the Deer Park facility in response to our CAA section 114 request for VCM/EDC facilities, and the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility has been included in the PVC-combined MACT floor calculation. Further discussion regarding the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is found in response to comments below and responses regarding area sources. The Formosa Baton Rouge facility has PVC-combined process vents, not PVC-only process vents. However, they submitted test results in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request that were collected while the control device at the facility was controlling vent streams from the PVC process only. Therefore, the test results are not representative of a PVC-only facility due to an abnormally large amount of natural gas combusted during the time of testing to maintain operation of the thermal oxidizer. Furthermore, that facility was not included in our CAA section 114 request for VCM/EDC facilities. Therefore, we have excluded the Baton Rouge facility from any process vent MACT floor calculations. We disagree with the commenters that the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility be removed from the PVC-combined process vent MACT floor calculation due to the facility experiencing a E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22876 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations malfunction during process vent testing. According to the source, the specific nature of the malfunction at the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility allowed a percentage of the process vent stream to bypass the control device and enter the vent stack. As a result, both controlled and uncontrolled emissions were measured during process vent testing; however, the facility’s measured concentrations were still low enough to be included in the top 5 best-performing facilities for PVC-only process vents for vinyl chloride, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP. Had the malfunction not occurred, pollutant concentrations would have been even less than those determined during the time of testing and the facility would have still been included in the top 5 best-performing facilities. Therefore, we are including the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility in the MACT floor calculation for process vents. We agree with commenters that the data submitted to the EPA in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request were collected under operating conditions of less than maximum capacity. Although commenters contended that the MACT floors should be adjusted for lower production levels in the final rules, commenters did not provide any empirical data or methodology to support modifying the limits. As such, we have no basis on which to consider revising the standards in response to this comment. We also agree with commenters that the testing schedule for our CAA section 114 request was compressed; however, commenters were not restricted from conducting additional testing and providing additional data to the EPA representing maximum operating conditions, yet, no such data were submitted. Accordingly, the EPA will use the data submitted by industry. Indeed, industry submitted 4 years of vinyl chloride resin data after the CAA section 114 testing request was completed and during the comment period. We do not agree that the final rule should allow for new sources to come into compliance 3 years after the final rule is promulgated. The compliance date requirements for new and reconstructed sources are specified in the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions at § 63.6(b). Comment: Several commenters argued against combining the PVC major source MACT and area source GACT. One commenter argued that it was not Congress’ intent to combine MACT and GACT requirements for sources listed in separate source categories, and that if this is going to be a trend moving VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 forward, the EPA should undertake a separate rulemaking to identify and define, for public comment, the criteria it intends to use for combining major and area source categories. The other commenter stated that if the EPA chooses to make revisions to the limits for area sources, they should first remove area sources from the PVC MACT floor database and final rule and then reopen the PVC GACT rule to properly consider the available technology and impact of proposed revisions on small area sources. One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s distinction between synthetic and natural area sources, arguing that because the CAA defines only two types of sources (major and area), any further distinctions are unlawful. Thus, they argue, the EPA’s artificial distinction between true and synthetic area sources in order to include synthetic area sources in the PVC major source MACT floor database is unlawful and inconsistent with past agency practice. Furthermore, one commenter argues that by choosing to include synthetic area sources in the MACT floor analysis, the EPA is providing a strong disincentive for facilities to voluntarily reduce emissions to area source levels through enforceable permit limits. One commenter disputed all of the EPA’s arguments for including synthetic area sources in the MACT floor: (1) The commenter noted that the EPA stated that Congress did not expressly exclude synthetic area sources from MACT floor determinations. The commenter argued that Congress did not need to expressly exclude these sources because the sources were already excluded because they are not part of the major source category. (2) The commenter further noted that the EPA has previously asserted that the definition of a major source, specifically the reference to a source’s potential to emit considering controls allows the interpretation that a source’s potential to emit before and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic minor sources may be considered within the meaning of the major source definition and included in the MACT floor determinations for categories for major sources. The commenter argued that the definition of what constitutes a major source allows a source’s potential to emit to be determined while ‘‘considering controls’’ means only that a source may install controls and render itself an area source. (3) The commenter referred to a floor statement of Senator Durenberger that the EPA cited to support its theory that the agency must take into account the ‘‘better’’ performing sources in setting PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the MACT floor. The commenter argued the statement demonstrates that it is the better performing sources within the source category that must be considered, and PVC area sources are not a part of the PVC major source category. One commenter added that for the EPA to ignore distinctions between area and major PVC sources and use the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility in MACT floor calculations is unlawful. The commenter contended that the EPA incorrectly assumes the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is a major source. The commenter stated that the facility is a ‘‘true’’ area source in contrast to the CertainTeed Mossville synthetic minor area source. The commenter contended that the CAA does not allow the distinction the EPA makes between synthetic and natural minor area sources, and the commenter provided detail of the regulatory history concerning major and area source classifications. The commenter provided additional detail regarding the classification of the OxyVinyls Deer Park and Certain Teed facilities, referencing previous communications with the EPA in which OxyVinyls informed the EPA that the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is an area source. The commenter contended that the EPA cannot consider any PVC area sources in the major source PVC floor database because PVC major and PVC area sources are two separate source categories under the CAA. The commenter concluded by recommending the EPA recalculate the existing major source MACT floors, excluding the Deer Park and CertainTeed facilities. Response: In the final rule, we have developed separate standards for major and area sources. We conducted a MACT floor analysis for major sources and a GACT analysis for area sources. Further discussion of the GACT analysis is provided in section V.H of this preamble. We have reviewed data that OxyVinyls submitted to support their comment that their Deer Park, Texas facility is a ‘‘true’’ or natural area source. Based on the information provided, we are considering OxyVinyls Deer Park facility to be an area source for purposes of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are using data from this facility and from the CertainTeed facility in Mossville, Louisiana to establish area source GACT standards. However, we have also determined that the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is a synthetic area source for the purposes of our analyses (without determining its status for any compliance purposes) because the facility routes emissions E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations from their process vents to a thermal oxidizer in series with an acid-gas scrubber. Without these controls, we would project the vinyl chloride and HCl emissions to be above the major source threshold. Similarly, for purposes of our analyses, we have determined that the CertainTeed facility is a synthetic area source because it uses controls, without which, their HAP emissions are projected to be above the major source threshold. Even though the area source facilities would be subject to the area source standards, because they are synthetic area sources, we are including the information from both facilities in our analyses establishing the MACT floor level of control for major sources. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA maintains that including synthetic area sources in calculating the MACT floor is consistent with CAA section 112(d). Inclusion of synthetic area sources in the MACT floor determinations is also consistent with the agency’s past practice in setting standards under CAA section 112(d). The inclusion of such sources affected the MACT floor level of control for the PVC-only HCl and PVC-Combined vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF process vents emission limits. Inclusion of synthetic area sources in the MACT floor determinations also affected the MACT floor level of control for the stripped resin limit for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in suspension and bulk resin. The vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP MACT floor emission limits for wastewater were also affected by inclusion of synthetic area sources. Section 112(d) of the CAA directs the EPA to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c) of the CAA. Each such standard must reflect a minimum level of control known as the MACT floor. (See CAA section 112(d).) However, section 112 of the CAA does not specifically address synthetic minor or synthetic area sources, which include those sources that emit fewer than 10 tpy of any HAP or fewer than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP, because they use some emission control device(s), pollution prevention techniques or other measures (collectively referred to as controls in this preamble) adopted under federal or state regulations. If not for the enforceable controls they have implemented, synthetic area sources would be major sources under section 112 of the CAA. We believe the better interpretation of the statutory language and legislative VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 history is that synthetic area sources be included in MACT floor determinations. First, the plain language of the statute makes clear that our MACT floor determinations are to reflect the best sources in a category or subcategory. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the MACT floor shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved, in practice, by the best-controlled similar source, as determined by the EPA. (See CAA section 112(d)(3).) For existing sources in a category or subcategory with fewer than 30 sources, the MACT floor may be less stringent than the floor for new sources in the same category or subcategory, but shall not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of the existing five sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information)) in the category or subcategory. (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) Thus, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires that MACT floors reflect what the bestcontrolled new sources and the bestperforming existing sources achieve in practice. These phrases contain no exemptions and are not limited by references to sources with or without controls. Therefore, they suggest that all of the best-controlled or best-performing sources should be considered in MACT floor determinations, regardless of whether or not such sources rely upon controls. Furthermore, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA expressly excludes certain sources that meet lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) requirements from MACT floor determinations for existing sources. (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) The fact that Congress expressly excluded such LAER sources, but did not also exclude synthetic area sources suggests that no exclusion was intended for synthetic area sources. Indeed, nothing in the statute suggests that the EPA should exclude a control technology from its consideration of the MACT floor because the technology is so effective that it reduces source emissions such that the source is no longer a major source of HAP. (See 68 FR 2232, January 16, 2003, stating this rationale for including synthetic area sources in the floor determination for the final NESHAP for municipal solid waste landfills.) Some commenters argue that because the PVC major and area source categories are separate, synthetic area sources (and natural (i.e., non-synthetic) area sources) fall outside the regulated source category and should not be considered in MACT floor PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22877 determinations. The EPA agrees that it listed PVC major and area source categories separately. (See 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992, and 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002.) However, the EPA disagrees that the CAA contemplates that synthetic area sources must be treated like true area sources and excluded from MACT floor determinations. Section 112(a) of the CAA defines a major source as: Any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants * * *. (See CAA section 112(a)(1).) An area source is defined as any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source. (See CAA section 112(a)(1).) In the major source definition, the EPA interprets the reference to a source’s ‘‘potential to emit considering controls’’ as meaning that a source’s potential to emit before and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be considered within the meaning of this definition and included in MACT floor determinations for categories of major sources. Including synthetic area sources in MACT floor determinations ensures that MACT floors reflect the best-performing sources, as the CAA requires. The EPA also considered whether the reference to a source’s potential to emit considering controls in the definition of major source necessarily means a source’s potential to emit after controls have been implemented. While the EPA believes it is possible to read the phrase in this manner in isolation, such an interpretation would have the effect of excluding the best-performing sources from MACT floor determinations and, therefore, would be contrary to the statutory mandate that the EPA set MACT floors based on the levels the best-controlled new sources and the best-performing existing sources achieve in practice. The statutory reference to potential to emit considering controls should be read in a manner consistent with the other requirements of CAA section 112(d) to allow for the consideration of synthetic area sources in MACT floor determinations for major sources. In addition, the legislative history suggests that synthetic area sources should be included in MACT floor determinations. In a floor statement, Senator Durenberger stated that in implementing section 112(d)(3) of the CAA, ‘‘the [Senate] managers intend the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22878 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Administrator to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that [the Administrator] has collected data on all of the better-performing sources within each category. [The Administrator] must have a data-gathering program sufficient to assure that [EPA] does not miss any sources that have superior levels of emission control.’’ (See Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, 103d Cong., S.Prt. 103–38 (prepared for the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works), A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 870, November 1993, emphasis added.) This statement underscores that Congress intended for MACT floor determinations to reflect consideration of all of the sources in each category with the best emission controls. It would be inconsistent with Congress’s intent and the plain language of the CAA to exclude synthetic area sources—those sources with superior controls that became synthetic area sources by implementing such controls—from MACT floor determinations. The inclusion of synthetic area sources in MACT floor determinations is justified because of the reasons explained above. Accordingly, we did not exclude synthetic area sources from MACT floor determinations for major sources. For more information concerning MACT floors for the final standards, see section V.E.2 of this preamble and the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, in the docket. Comment: Several commenters stated that dispersion resin limits should be based on measured concentration data and not calculated mass figures. Two commenters stated that the vinyl chloride limit proposed for dispersion resin was developed using a database that the EPA aggregated from producer submissions on a mass (pounds per day dry) basis and then re-divided by reported production volumes. The commenters listed several problems with the data used to convert the reported mass emissions to concentration limits by the EPA. The commenters recommended that the EPA simply use the underlying measured concentration data as the best and most accurate basis from which to develop the PVC MACT. Response: For the final rule, we have revised the MACT floor-based emission limits for stripped resins. See section V.E.2 of this preamble. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Comment: One commenter stated they agree with the EPA’s procedure for determining RDL. Another commenter contended that the EPA cannot justify its floor adjustment by asserting an inability to measure emissions below its triple-maximum-detection limit floor. The commenter stated that the record includes multiple sources that used lower detection limits; those sources demonstrate the feasibility of measuring emissions at lower levels. The commenter added that the agency specifies detection methods together with its standards; that detection method should have a known detection limit with a well-defined level of certainty. The commenter proposed that the agency could, accordingly, calculate its floor and as a second and independent step establish monitoring requirements that accommodate any imprecision associated with measurement, or it could utilize a safety factor. The commenter contended that the agency cannot, however, simply manipulate the limits according to standards that appear nowhere in the CAA. Another commenter questioned the way in which the EPA addresses nondetects in air emissions. The commenter stated that multiplying by a factor of 3 is not presented in a clear way to show the rationale behind this calculation. Response: As explained below, the final emissions limits were established using the RDL, which is based on an average, not the highest or lowest, of method detection levels for the best performing units. We agree with the commenter’s suggestion to calculate the floor and then establish monitoring requirements to accommodate several factors, such as measurement precision near the detection limit. We agree with many of the comments related to treatment of data reported as detection limit values in the development of MACT floors and emissions limits. The probability procedures applied in calculating the floor or an emissions limit inherently and reasonably account for emissions data variability including measurement imprecision when the database represents multiple tests from multiple emissions units for which all of the data are measured above the method detection level. That is less true when the database includes emissions occurring below method detection capabilities regardless of how those data are reported. The EPA’s guidance to respondents for reporting pollutant emissions used to support the data collection specified the criteria for determining test-specific method detection levels. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Those criteria ensure that there is only about a 1-percent probability of an error in deciding that the pollutant measured at the method detection level is present when, in fact, it was absent. (See Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements; American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste, February 2001.) Such a probability is also called a false positive or the alpha, Type I, error. This means, specifically, that for a normally distributed set of measurement data, 99 out of 100 single measurements will fall within ±2.54 s of the true concentration. The anticipated range for the average of repeated measurements comes progressively closer to the true concentration. More precisely, the anticipated range varies inversely with the square root of the number of measurements. Thus, if s is the standard deviation of anticipated single measurements, the anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future triplicate measurements will fall within ± 2.54 s/ √3 of the true concentration. This relationship translates to an expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value occurring at or near the method detection level of about 40 to 50 percent. By assuming a similar distribution of measurements across a range of values and increasing the mean value to a representative higher value (e.g., 3 times MDL), we can estimate measurement imprecision at other levels. For an assumed 3 times the MDL, the estimated measurement imprecision for a 3-testrun average value would be on the order 10 to 20 percent. This is about the same measurement imprecision as found for EPA Methods 23 and 29 indicated in the ASME Precision of Manual Stack Emissions Measurements for the sample volumes prescribed in the final rule (e.g., 4 to 6 dry standard cubic meters (dscm)) for multiple tests. Analytical laboratories often report a value above the method detection limit that represents the laboratory’s perceived confidence in the quality of the value. This arbitrarily adjusted value is expressed differently by various laboratories and is called limit of quantitation (LOQ), practical quantitation limit (PQL) or RL. In many cases, the LOQ, PQL or RL is simply a multiplication of the method detection limit. Multipliers range from 3 to 10. Because these values reflect individual laboratories’ perceived confidence, and, therefore, could be viewed as arbitrary, we decline to adopt the LOQ, PQL or RL because such approaches in our view would inappropriately inflate the MACT E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations floor standards. Our alternative to those inconsistent approaches is discussed below. Consistent with findings expressed in reports of emissions measurement imprecision and the practices of analytical laboratories, we believe that using a measurement value of 3 times a method’s detection limit established in a manner that assures 99-percent confidence of a measurement above zero will produce a representative method RL suitable for establishing regulatory floor values. On the other hand, we agree with commenters that an emissions limit determined from a small subset of data or data from a single source may be significantly different than the actual method detection levels achieved by the best-performing units in practice. This fact, combined with the low levels of emissions measured from many of the best-performing units, led the EPA to review and revise the procedure intended to account for the contribution of measurement imprecision to data variability in establishing effective emissions limits. In response to the comments and internal concerns about the quality of measurements at very low emissions limits especially for new sources, we revised the procedure for identifying an RDL The revised procedure for determining an RDL starts with identifying all of the available reported pollutant specific method detection levels for the best-performing units regardless of any subcategory (e.g., existing or new, fuel type, etc.). From that combined pool of data, we calculate the arithmetic mean value. By limiting the data set to those tests used to establish the floor or emissions limit (i.e., best performers), we believe that the result is representative of the bestperforming testing companies and laboratories using the most sensitive analytical procedures. We believe that the outcome should minimize the effect of a test(s) with an inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive or the procedure for determining the minimum value for reporting was other than the detection level). We then call the resulting mean of the method detection levels the RDL as characteristic of accepted source emissions measurement performance. The second step in the process is to calculate 3 times the RDL to compare with the calculated floor or emissions limit. This step is similar to what we have used before including for the Portland cement MACT determination. We use the multiplication factor of 3 to VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 reduce the imprecision of the analytical method until the imprecision in the field sampling reflects the relative method precision as estimated by the ASME ReMAP study. That study indicates that such relative imprecision remains a constant 10 to 20 percent, over the range of the method. For assessing the calculated floor results relative to measurement method capabilities, if 3 times the RDL were less than the calculated floor or emissions limit (e.g., calculated from the UPL), we would conclude that measurement variability was adequately addressed. The calculated floor or emissions limit would need no adjustment. If, on the other hand, the value equal to 3 times the RDL were greater than the UPL, we would conclude that the calculated floor or emissions limit does not account entirely for measurement variability. Where such was the case, we substituted the value equal to 3 times the RDL for the calculated floor or emissions limit, which results in a concentration where the method would produce measurement accuracy on the order of 10 to 20 percent, which is similar to other EPA test methods and the results found in the ASME ReMAP study. We determined the RDL for each pollutant using data from tests of all the best performers for all of the final regulatory subcategories (i.e., pooled test data). We applied the same pollutant-specific RDL and emissions limit adjustment procedure to all subcategories for which we established emissions limits. We believe that emissions limits adjusted in this manner, which ensures that measurement variability is adequately addressed relative to compliance determinations, is a better procedure than the one applied at proposal, which was based on more limited data. We also believe that the currently available emissions testing procedures and technologies provide the measurement certainty sufficient for sources to demonstrate compliance at the levels of the revised emissions limits. As for the commenter’s suggestion that the EPA utilize a safety factor, the commenter provided no additional explanation of what a safety factor is, how it should be calculated and used, and no additional information to calculate such a factor. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has set impossibly low limits for CDD/CDF, given the detection limits for EPA Method 23. Several commenters contended that, considering the body of available evidence on this subject, the EPA should not set limits below 0.1 nanogram toxic equivalent (TEQ) per PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22879 dscm for CDD/CDF. Several commenters asserted that the CDD/CDF emission level of 0.023 nanograms per dry standard cubic meters (ng/dscm) proposed for PVC facilities is below levels that can be accurately measured. Several commenters stated the EPA should impose work practice standards rather than emission limits to control CDD/CDF emissions or adjust the CDD/ CDF standard to account for measurement uncertainty. One commenter stated that the EPA’s decision to propose such conservative requirements for CDD/CDF testing is particularly surprising and unjustified in light of the EPA’s own estimates of the very low overall reduction of CDD/ CDF emissions that would be achieved by this rule. The commenter also noted that the EPA recognized the CDD/CDF dataset contains nearly 50-percent ‘‘nondetect’’ data. The commenter added that previous MACT rulemaking efforts for other comparable subparts, including the MACT rule for Hazardous Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE) or the Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD), typically allow for either a work practice standard or for one-time CDD/CDF emissions testing of units subject to the rule. In contrast, the commenter asserted that the EPA has not proposed to allow for work practice standards and other emission standards (e.g., control of temperature in the air pollution control system and emission standards for vinyl chloride and HCl) to control CDD/CDF emissions in the PVC MACT rule and instead, proposes to establish CDD/CDF emission standards at or below the detection capabilities of EPA Method 23 along with expensive testing for CDD/CDF annually. The commenter further stated that because PVC-only plants have similar CDD/CDF emissions, PVC-only plants should not be subject to numerical limits for CDD/ CDF emissions. One commenter stated that section 112(h) of the CAA provides that ‘‘if it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard * * * the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard’’ and also cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (DC Cir. 2007). The commenter stated that the EPA must first make a determination that ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations,’’ not that it lacks emissions data to set a limit. The commenter added they believe that PVC facilities face precisely the type of E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22880 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations technological constraints in measuring for CDD/CDF that require the use of work practice standards. Response: The commenters are correct that, at proposal, 50 percent of the CDD/ CDF dataset was at non-detect levels. However, with the addition of the EDC/ VCM information submitted by industry in response to the CAA section 114 request for the EDC/VCM industry, that number has decreased to 38 percent. In comparison, 10 of the Boiler NESHAP subcategories in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD contained CDD/CDF datasets with non-detect values greater than 80 percent of the data, with most having non-detects greater than 90 percent of the data. As a result, the EPA determined that a work practice standard would be appropriate for the major source Boiler NESHAP. Likewise, in the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards signed by the Administrator on December 16, 2011, the EPA established work practice standards for CDD/CDF because the significant majority of data from all the generating units were below the detection levels of the EPA test methods. Such is not the case for the PVC data. Given the significantly greater level of detected information for PVC process vents it is apparent that CDD/CDF can be detected in PVC process vent streams. Therefore, we maintain that numerical emission limits are appropriate rather than work practices to control CDD/CDF emissions from PVCPU process vents. As discussed previously, the emission limits for CDD/CDF have been revised, based on new data collected from EDC/ VCM manufacturers and new subcategories. We reviewed much larger data sets of EPA Method 23 CDD/CDF test data and determined that representative detection levels equal to 0.018 ng/dscm are achievable for sample volumes less than or equal to 6 dscm. As a result, the final rule requires a CDD/CDF TEQ emission limit of 0.038 ng/dscm for PVC-only process vents at existing and new sources, 0.051 ng/ dscm for PVC-combined process vents at existing sources, and 0.034 ng/dscm for PVC-combined process vents at new sources. We estimate that 10 out of 13 sources for which we have data are able to meet the emission limits without additional control. We are not prescribing a particular control technology for the remaining facilities. Affected sources may use any control technique to meet the CDD/CDF limits. We believe sources can use techniques such as enhanced vapor recovery prior to combustion as a means to reduce chlorinated compounds resulting in less chlorine available to form CDD/CDF. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 For the impacts estimate, we estimated the cost for enhanced vapor recovery (e.g., condensers) prior to combustion. Cost and emission reductions estimation are documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. F. Emission Source Requirements 1. Process Vents Comment: One commenter raised several issues with the proposed definition of process vent. First, the commenter argued that the definition of process vent is too broad and incorporates emission points that are already regulated under other sections of the rule. Specifically, the commenters contended that unloading and loading lines, samples, wastewater collection and treatment systems and ‘‘other process components prior to the resin stripper’’ should be removed from the definition of process vent because including them in the process vent definition is in conflict with the proposed definitions of batch and continuous process vents. The commenter contended that wastewater collection and treatment systems should be excluded because they would already be regulated under the wastewater provisions specified in 40 CFR 63.11965 and 40 CFR 63.11970 of the proposed rule. In the case of ‘‘other process components prior to the resin stripper,’’ the commenter contended that this is too broad a term, and at a minimum, the EPA should clarify what is meant by this term in the context of the process vent definition. Instead of the current proposed definition, the commenter suggested the following definition for process vent: ‘‘Process vent means batch process vent or continuous process vent.’’ The commenter also proposed that the definitions of batch and continuous process vents should provide an exclusion for gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system. The commenter stated that because gaseous streams have a useful purpose and most other 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP exclude gaseous streams from the definition of a process vent, they should not be considered process vents in this rule. Response: In the final rule, we have revised the definition of process vent, continuous process vent and batch process vent to provide additional clarification, and we have added a definition for miscellaneous vent. These revisions also provide additional consistency with the changes made to the affected source definition, the definition of PVCPU and the new PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 definitions for PVC-only process vent and PVC-combined process vent. See section V.I of this preamble for a complete discussion of the revised and added definitions. 2. Equipment Leaks Comment: Several commenters contended that the proposed requirement to have double mechanical seals and double outboard seals on rotating equipment is a beyond-the-floor control option and not a representation of the current control level within the industry. The commenters stated that there are no PVCPU that exclusively utilize double mechanical seals throughout the PVCPU, but instead these technologies are used in limited areas of the PVC production process and different technologies are used in other areas. The commenters added that because the proposed requirements are actually beyond-the-floor options, the revised rule should allow subject facilities the option to comply with all the provisions of the promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU MACT standard. The commenters also contended that installation of further controls will constitute a burden on facilities and will provide minimal benefits in the form of potential HAP emission reductions. One commenter pointed out that proposed 40 CFR 63.11915(b)(1) and (2) would require pump seal installations that are optional under 40 CFR 63.1026(e) of subpart UU. Likewise, they argued, proposed 40 CFR 63.11915(b)(5) would require agitator seal installations that are optional under 40 CFR 63.1028(e) of subpart UU. The commenter argued that the EPA should revise the pump and agitator seal section to be consistent with subpart UU. Response: The proposed requirement that reciprocating pumps, reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators be equipped with double seals, or equivalent, was in error. In the final rules, we have adopted the MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks for all components (which is compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), which gives affected sources the option of installing double seals, or equivalent, or complying with the LDAR requirements of the equipment leak standards. Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed requirements for PRD that any release is an automatic violation. The commenters contended that this requires a costly retrofit with little additional environmental benefit. Commenters contended that this provision is in contradiction to a longstanding recognition by the EPA that E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations some PRD discharges are necessary; for example, they stated the current rule recognizes that proper operation of PRD (including using emergency relief valve discharges, currently exempted) is a necessary component of safe and responsible plant operation. One commenter recommended that the EPA revise the proposed language at 40 CFR 63.11915(c) to read ‘‘[a]ny release to the atmosphere from a pressure relief device in HAP service, except for an emergency relief discharge * * * constitutes a violation of this rule.’’ Several commenters added that in the affirmative defense requirements, the EPA acknowledges safety-related relief valve discharges. Commenters pointed out that the affirmative defense criteria state in 40 CFR 63.11895(a): ‘‘(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control device components or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; * * * (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation, if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices.’’ In addition, some commenters contended the low reportable quantity thresholds and Toxic Release Inventory reporting are adequate incentives for facilities to minimize discharge events, thus, allowing for affirmative defense is appropriate. The commenters stated other MACT standards like the HON and the Consolidated Air Rule also make allowances in the closed vent system bypass rules that account for safety-related pressure valve releases, and, thus, that in order to avoid unsafe conditions and prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage, the EPA should allow facilities to claim an affirmative defense for safety-related releases. Response: PRD releases are already prohibited at all PVC facilities by the part 61 NESHAP, except when ducted to a control device meeting the 10 ppm limit that applies to process vents or in an emergency relief discharge (40 CFR 61.65(a)). In this CAA section 112(d) NESHAP rulemaking, which builds upon the part 61 NESHAP, we have developed emission standards that are continuous and consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. Commenters do not have any legal basis for failing to apply an emission standard to PRD releases. We believe that PRD releases at PVC facilities are caused by malfunctions or other occurrences. However, such circumstances do not justify commenters’ suggestion that no standard applies to such releases. Further, the proposed affirmative VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 defense would be available for PRD releases caused by malfunctions. Therefore, we are not exempting emergency PRD releases in the final rule. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore, the final rule provides that a PRD release, unless ducted to a control device meeting the process vent limits, is a violation of the emission standard. Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP. In that case, it is important to identify and control any releases in a timely manner. Therefore, we are requiring you to install electronic indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release. In addition to ensuring that significant releases are addressed, these requirements will also alert operators to any operational problems with the PRD seal that could be resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. Furthermore, if danger is imminent and a PRD releases to the atmosphere, facilities have the ability to assert an affirmative defense. As discussed in the proposed rule, we are including an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits. See 40 CFR 63.12005 of the proposed rule (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are requiring that other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11895 of the PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22881 proposed rule and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health * * *.’’ In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77). Comment: Several commenters argued that multiple systems and procedures already exist at facilities to detect and remedy releases from PRD and, thus, automatic release indicators are redundant. These commenters stated retrofitting existing PRD with release indicators would be costly, and installation of these devices will not result in any emission reduction because they are indicators only. Commenters contended that the PVC industry is currently subject to both environmental and safety standards that adequately address concerns with the detection of emissions from relief devices, such as 40 CFR part 61, subpart V requirements in 40 CFR 61.242–4. Two commenters pointed out that most PVC plants typically have rupture discs installed below relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere, and monitor the space between the rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on a routine basis using a local pressure indicator and log this information for safety purposes. One commenter contended that the EPA should at least perform a cost-benefit analysis before finalizing this requirement. Several commenters contended that given the cost, multiple systems currently in-place, and the lack of any emissions reductions, the EPA should delete the requirement for release indicators at proposed 40 CFR 63.11915(c). Response: We acknowledge, based on information from the commenters, that the PVC industry typically installs area monitors in addition to rupture discs in series with relief valves. We also acknowledge other commenters’ statements that multiple systems and procedures exist to detect and remedy releases from PRD, although they did not identify specific systems or procedures for the EPA to consider. However, the commenters did not suggest that the EPA adopt any type of E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22882 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES monitoring or recordkeeping requirement for PRD discharges, and commenters’ statements taken as a whole do not support a conclusion that all PVC facilities currently install and use effective means to detect and record PRD discharges for all of their PRD. Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP, and a large number of these releases that may occur may not be identified and controlled in a timely manner, and may be due to repeat problems that have not been corrected. In the final rule, PRD are required to be equipped with indicators to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release. The requirement to install indicators to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release is a compliance requirement to ensure the PRD requirements in the final rule are met. They help ensure that any PRD discharge, i.e., a release of uncontrolled HAP emissions, is immediately known to the source operator and recorded for future consideration by the facility or regulatory authority, so that remedial or preventative action can be taken to minimize or avoid PRD discharges in the future. The cost of the electronic indicators is incorporated into the costs of the final rule. Our cost estimates are based on the best information available to the EPA. While commenters indicated the EPA costs were underestimated, they did not provide sufficient information to revise our estimates. Additional discussion on our decisions regarding PRD is found in the response to the previous comment. 3. Resin Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.11960(d)(2) and (3) of the proposed rule states that: ‘‘If an operating limit is a range, then you must operate the stripper as close as possible to the maximum or minimum operating limit for the resin stripper, whichever results in higher emissions (i.e., lower emission reduction).’’ The commenter added that the purpose of an operating range is to allow for normal variability and fluctuation inherent in the process, and by requiring that compliance measurements be performed at operating conditions resulting in the highest emissions, the agency is artificially increasing both the chance that a single compliance measurement would be out of compliance, as well as the overall emissions loading used to evaluate the environmental performance of the unit. The commenter submitted that such operating limits applied to resin strippers are inappropriate and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 that where conditions exist that operating limits are appropriate, proper measurement protocol would be to require sampling within the normal operating ranges, not at a particular point within. Response: In the final rule, for stripped resins as well as for process wastewater, we are no longer requiring sources to comply with operating limits and conduct continuous parametric monitoring. The requirements to conduct resin sampling are sufficient to assure compliance with the stripped resin limits. In our review of the resin sampling data in conjunction with the establishment of additional subcategories for stripped resins (see discussion above), we recognize that while resin subcategories are established at the type of resin, there are a multitude of resin grades produced by facilities that fall under a general resin type. Some facilities may produce on the order of hundreds of different grades for any one particular resin type. For the same reasons outlined as to why we are establishing additional subcategories for stripped resins in the final rule, we recognize that there are also differences in the formulations, recipes and processing conditions in the polymerization reactors and/or resin stripper for different resin grades of the same resin type. The establishment of resin subcategories at the grade level would be impractical because an inordinate number of subcategories would have to be established for hundreds, if not thousands, of different grades of resin. As such, the MACT limits established at the level of resin type will account for the inherent variability in not only the formulation and recipes of the different resin grades, but also the variation that must exist in the polymerization and stripping of different resin grades in order to meet established resin specifications and enduser requirements. The final rule requires that compliance with the stripped resin limits be demonstrated based on a 24-hour arithmetic average of samples taken every 3 hours for continuous strippers or at the end of each batch for batch strippers. The frequency of resin sampling that is required under the final rule is sufficient to ensure that continuous and batch stripping operations are in continuous compliance with the stripped resin limits. Therefore, requiring facilities to establish parameters on their stripping operations that must be monitored and maintained to ensure continuous compliance is not practical considering the multitude of operating limits and PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ranges that would need to be established to cover the production of numerous grades of resin. We further recognize that given the establishment of resin limits at the outlet of the resin strippers, we can allow flexibility in the operation of the strippers while ensuring that the resin limits are being met as the resin exits the stripper. Therefore, we have removed all requirements for continuous parametric monitoring of resin strippers from the final rule. Comment: One commenter contended that a work practice standard is needed for startup periods for the resin slurry strippers. The commenter does not normally take samples for vinyl chloride within 2 hours of a PVC resin slurry stripper startup, but provided a table of information in their comment letter on four investigations undertaken on different days at different plants. The commenter stated that the first three products tested were relatively easy-tostrip grades, while the fourth product was a relatively hard-to-strip pipe-grade resin. The commenter stated that a relatively short startup vinyl chloride spike is present for easy-to-strip resins, but that for the higher volume pipe grade resin with lower porosity (hard-tostrip), the startup spike lasted at least 1 hour and, possibly, 2 hours. The commenter contended that, based on the variability seen in the slurry stripper startups, it is not possible to set a single numerical limit for startup conditions. Therefore, the commenter requested that the EPA establish a work practice allowing a 2-hour time period following startup when no vinyl chloride samples shall be used for compliance purposes. Response: The resin limits apply at all times including during periods of normal operation and during periods or startup and shutdown. The variability incorporated into the stripped resin limit calculation for each resin type will sufficiently allow for periods of concentration spiking during periods of startup. Compliance with the stripped resin limits is based on a 24-hour arithmetic average of samples taken every 8 hours for continuous strippers or at the end of each batch for batch strippers. For a continuous stripper, samples must be taken every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent. We believe the 24-hour averaging time and 8-hour sampling frequency will allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the stripped resin limits. Finally, section 112(h) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission limits only where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. This statutory threshold is further defined to E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES mean that HAP cannot be emitted ‘‘through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant’’ or ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.’’ The commenter did not provide any information to satisfy this statutory prerequisite to support the application of work practice standards to startup periods for resin strippers. Therefore, we disagree that a work practice should be established in lieu of a numerical emission limit for resin strippers during periods of startup. 4. Wastewater Comment: Several commenters contended that owner/operators should be exempt from the proposed initial and continuous vinyl chloride and HAP sampling requirements if they can document, through process knowledge or historical sampling data, that no HAP are present in the wastewater stream. The commenters proposed that all documentation would be available to an inspector. Commenters contended that the HON at 40 CFR 63.144(b) and (c) (subpart G) allows for the use of sampling, bench scale data and/or process knowledge to determine concentration and flow rate of a wastewater stream. Response: In the final rule, we are requiring that for any process wastewater streams that are not being treated prior to being discharged from the PVCPU, facilities must sample those streams and determine if treatment is required to meet the process wastewater limits for vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP. If, after the initial sampling, treatment is not required to meet the limits, then those streams must only be retested annually or when a process change is made. The final rule contains limits based on the MACT floor for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. The total HAP concentration and flow rate cutoffs were included as a beyond-the-floor option at proposal in an effort to make the wastewater requirements consistent with other chemical sector rules, because the option was cost-effective. Based on our evaluation of the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits, we determined that the 1,000 ppmw threshold for total organic HAP, above which facilities would have been required to comply with the HON wastewater provisions, was not appropriate for the final rule as all streams must meet a limit for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, that, when combined (i.e., 116.8 ppmw for existing sources and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 0.30 ppmw for new sources), is much lower than the previously proposed 1,000 ppmw threshold. We, therefore, removed the total HAP flow rate cutoff and concentration cutoff, and flow rate determination requirements from the final rule. Annual re-sampling and testing of untreated streams is not overly burdensome and provides more reliable results than engineering estimates or process knowledge on which to determine whether at some point in the future, an untreated stream must be treated to meet applicable limits. Comment: Some commenters stated that the EPA should provide exemptions for certain safety-related streams. The commenters contended that certain events may occur at a PVCPU that require the release and subsequent discharge of water, such as a fire or the use of eye wash stations and safety shower, and these activities have little to no chance of emitting HAP. The commenters stated that safety-related streams are identified in HON at 40 CFR 63.100(f)(1) through (11). In the absence of such exemptions, the commenters concluded that facility employees will be confused or hesitant because of a compliance dilemma at the worst possible time. Several commenters asked for clarification about which in-process wastewater streams require control and treatment. Several commenters contended that maintenance wastewater streams should be regulated independently of process wastewater. The commenters stated that the capture of maintenance wastewater emissions is infeasible and thus warrants use of a work practice standard. The commenters stated that there are no known practical and effective methods for collecting and controlling fugitive emissions from a wastewater stream, which can vary considerably in HAP concentration and flow rate. Several commenters argued that maintenance wastewater should not have a prescribed limit, but should have work practices to remove residuals prior to generation. A commenter stated that maintenance activities are non-routine, highly variable activities that require the purging, clearing and cleaning of equipment in preparation for safe handling by personnel. Some commenters added that maintenance wastewaters include dilute concentrations of HAP because industry takes efforts to remove residual HAP before equipment is flushed. The commenters concluded that quantifying a concentration to establish compliance with a limit would be extremely difficult if not impossible, because the ‘‘acceptable’’ level would be based on PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22883 the specific circumstances involved. The commenters added that other MACT standards like the HON and MON provide a separate management option for maintenance or turnaround wastewater. The commenters contended that streams should be clearly defined by the point of determination (POD) and not the proposed point of generation (POG). The commenters added that the POG concept is not defined or explained within either the VCM NESHAP or the proposed PVC MACT. Other MACT standards related to chemical process industries provide for sampling at the POD and have exemptions in the rule related to the definition of wastewater. Response: We agree with the commenters that it is not feasible to collect wastewater resulting from maintenance activities at PVC facilities such that it could be contained and routed to a wastewater treatment system. We disagree that maintenance wastewater generation activities are non-routine. We maintain that maintenance activities at PVC facilities are routine, but those activities result in the generation of wastewater in such a manner that it cannot be collected, enclosed and routed to a wastewater treatment system or otherwise managed in a controlled or enclosed system as process wastewater can. PVC facilities reported a variety of different work practices used for maintenance wastewater, but did not provide sufficient description or information necessary to determine the effectiveness of any one work practice alone or relative to other work practices. Furthermore, these streams can vary considerably in HAP concentration. Therefore, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for maintenance wastewater and maintenance wastewater streams should be regulated separately from process wastewater. In the final rule, maintenance wastewater is not subject to the same requirements as process wastewater but instead is subject to work practice standards. We are incorporating into the final rule the maintenance wastewater work practice requirements used in other EPA standards, such as the HON. These work practice standards include preparing a description of maintenance procedures for management of wastewater generated from the emptying and purging of equipment in the process during temporary shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair and during periods which are not shutdowns. As in the HON, facilities can effectively implement these work practices to prevent or mitigate the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22884 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations emissions of HAP from wastewater generated during maintenance activities. We also agree that certain safety related activities that may generate a wastewater stream not be subject to the requirements for process wastewater. Therefore, we have added separate requirements in the final rule for maintenance wastewater streams. Furthermore, we have clarified that certain safety-related streams are not considered wastewater. These two revisions in the final rule are consistent with wastewater provisions in other MACT standards, such as the HON and MON. We have also removed all terminology related to ‘‘point of generation’’ and ‘‘point of determination.’’ These terms created confusion for determining compliance with the standards. The final rule includes simplified language regarding where process wastewater streams must be tested to determine if treatment is required to meet the process wastewater limits. In the final rule, we are requiring that wastewater be measured immediately as it leaves a piece of process equipment and before being mixed with any other process wastewater stream. We have also clarified that the limits must be met before the process wastewater stream is discharged from the PVCPU. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 5. Heat Exchange Systems Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed heat exchange systems monitoring methods are more restrictive than other 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The commenters suggested that the EPA broaden proposed leak testing and compliance requirements for cooling water supply (in closed-loop recirculation systems) and required heat exchange systems. The commenters identified several alternate compliance methods: (1) EPA Method 107, which focuses on vinyl chloride, not HAP, be included as a compliance option. Commenters contended that EPA Method 107, which is conducted onsite, allows for fast results (24 hours, while EPA SW–846 Method 8021B tests can take a week) and quicker repairs to any leaking exchange systems; (2) EPA SW–846 Method 8260B, which commenters said should replace EPA SW–846 Method 8021B. Commenters stated that EPA SW–846 Method 8260B has a more comprehensive target chemical list; test laboratories no longer have the equipment or personnel capable of performing EPA SW–846 Method 8021B; and EPA SW–846 Method 8021B is not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 63.14 as is the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Response: The leak action level for heat exchange systems is not an independent limit on emissions, but rather is used as an indicator that there may be a leaking component and as a trigger level to take further action to remedy the leak. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the leak action level and associated repair requirements for heat exchange systems are work practice standards under section 112(h) of the CAA and not numerical emission limits, similar to requirements applicable to equipment leaks. The proposed leak action levels and monitoring frequencies were established based on the information provided to us in responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request of the PVC industry and subsequent requests by us of the industry requesting clarification on heat exchange system monitoring practices used in the industry. At proposal, we required measurement of total strippable VOC for detecting leaks of HAP into the cooling water, which are ultimately emitted downstream. Based on comments received, we have added an option for facilities to monitor their heat exchange systems using EPA Method 107, for vinyl chloride to monitor for leaks of total strippable VOC into cooling water. Vinyl chloride is the primary raw material in the manufacture of PVC and is present in all process streams. Therefore, if either total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride leaks are detected, repair of the leaks will control the leaks for all HAP. The process streams are cooled by cooling water in non-contact heat exchangers. If there is a leak of a process stream into the cooling water, for example, through a broken heat exchanger tube bundle, vinyl chloride concentrations would increase in the cooling water. A leaking process stream that contains other HAP in addition to vinyl chloride would also leak those other HAP into the cooling water. In a recirculating heat exchange system that contains a cooling tower, the cooling water is exposed to the atmosphere at the cooling tower. It is sufficient to establish a leak action level for heat exchange systems at PVC facilities based on a level of vinyl chloride that, if detected in the cooling water, would indicate a leak of the process stream and all HAP contained in that process stream into the system. Therefore, we determined that for this industry, vinyl chloride is also an appropriate indicator to determine if there is a leak in a heat exchange system. Furthermore, EPA Method 107 is an established method PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 for the analysis of vinyl chloride in wastewater samples. Our approach at proposal to determining a MACT floor for heat exchange systems was to calculate the average (arithmetic mean) leak action level from the five reported lowest leak action levels to determine the floor for existing sources, and the single lowest leak action level to determine the floor for new sources. Similarly, we looked at the range of monitoring frequencies and selected the median frequency from nine heat exchange systems for existing sources and the most frequent monitoring period for new sources. We have revised the leak action level at the MACT floor for existing sources based on the median leak action level for total strippable VOC from the top five lowest leak action levels reported. Similar to our approach to determining the MACT floor for equipment leaks, it is appropriate to evaluate the median of leak action levels instead of calculating the arithmetic mean. We determined that the leak action level for total strippable VOC for the existing source MACT floor is 50 ppbw. The lowest leak action level reported was also 50 ppbw and represents the revised MACT floor leak action level for new sources. Therefore, in the final rule, the leak action level for total strippable VOC in cooling water is 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both existing and new sources. The methods used by facilities to monitor for VOC include the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method and EPA Method 624. In the final rule, we have revised the cooling water monitoring method from EPA SW–846 Method 8021B to EPA Method 624, but we have not changed the option to monitor using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method. To develop a leak action level for vinyl chloride, we looked at the leak action levels and monitoring frequencies reported by facilities that perform vinyl chloride monitoring using EPA Method 107. We determined a vinyl chloride leak action level based on the median leak action level reported by facilities that monitor for vinyl chloride. Those leak action levels range from 50 ppbw to 5,000 ppbw with monitoring frequencies between monthly and quarterly. To determine the MACT floor level of control, we conducted an analysis similar to the analysis conducted for equipment leaks; an analogous emission source that is fugitive in nature where control is a work practice and not an emission limit. The existing source MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks was calculated using the average (median) level of control of work practices at the best-performing five sources. We E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES determined that the median leak action level for heat exchange systems was 50 ppbw. The MACT floor analysis results in a leak action level for vinyl chloride for existing sources of 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring. The lowest leak action level reported was also 50 ppbw and represents the revised MACT floor for new sources. Therefore, in the final rule, the leak action level for total strippable VOC in cooling water is 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both existing and new sources. This analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. 6. Other Emission Sources Comment: One commenter stated that in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA has indicated that for ‘‘other emission sources,’’ requirements from part 61 NESHAP constituted the MACT floor level of control and that, in turn, was used to set the proposed limits, which requires complying with a vinyl chloride percent reduction. However, the commenter added, the rule requires sources to comply with a total HAP percent reduction, while the preamble only requires sources to comply with a vinyl chloride percent reduction. The commenter contended that sources have been using a method for sampling and detecting vinyl chloride for years, and measuring total HAP will introduce an additional layer of complexity to the compliance requirement. The commenter requested that the EPA review the rule language and make it consistent with the preamble language by replacing total HAP with vinyl chloride. Response: In the final rule, as in the proposed rule, we are requiring work practices that require venting the emissions from process components and equipment through a closed vent system to a control device prior to opening to minimize emissions. This is typically achieved by sweeping the component or equipment several times with nitrogen to reduce the concentration of HAP in the vapor space of the component or equipment. These work practices will reduce emissions of all HAP present in the component or equipment prior to opening. In the final rule we are setting standards for this emission source based on vinyl chloride because the part 61 NESHAP, which constitutes the MACT floor level of control for reactor and equipment openings, requires work practices to specifically control vinyl chloride emissions. It is appropriate to VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 continue to set the standards based on vinyl chloride because it will always be present at this emission point, and controlling it will control all other HAP. Comment: Commenters stated that gasholders should not be regulated as storage vessels, but should be considered as surge control vessels, due to their process functions. Specifically, commenters contended that based on the CAA liquid storage definitions and associated requirements, gasholders do not meet the definitions of ‘‘fixed roof’’ storage vessel or ‘‘floating roof’’ storage vessel and, thus, recommended that gasholders be defined as surge control vessels in 40 CFR 63.12005. One commenter also agreed with the EPA that gasholder seal water should not be regulated as wastewater. The commenters stated that it is impractical to measure gasholder fugitive emissions or route them to a stack, thus work practices should be used to control these gasholder emissions. One commenter recommended that the EPA regulate PVC MACT gasholders in the same way as other surge control vessels at 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The commenters stated that the PVC MACT standard for gasholders should be a combination of equipment control and procedural requirements. The commenter described studies undertaken to determine the feasibility of certain control technologies like the use of floating objects to cover the water seal, finding that though these approaches can reduce emissions, they have drawbacks as well, and thus should be used in combination with procedural standards. One commenter provided information related to emissions and controls for gasholders, as requested by the EPA in the preamble. The commenter stated that gasholders are important for safety and stability of the operation in the PVC process, with the process equipment specifically designed around gasholders to maintain safe pressure and gas flow to the closed vent and vinyl chloride recovery systems. According to the commenter, any changes to the design of the existing system could compromise safety procedures and would impose a burdensome capital investment. Finally, the commenter recommended the use of floating objects, such as balls, hallow disks, an oil layer or rubber mats, in the gasholder water seal for emissions reductions, because it is a flexible system that provides a consistent degree of control without creating additional waste management concerns. Response: In the proposed rule, we requested comment on techniques to control emissions from gasholders. We reviewed the information submitted by PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22885 the industry and have concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for emissions of vinyl chloride or other HAP from the water seal and the outside of the floating bell on gasholders. For PVC facilities that have gasholders, they are an integral part of the vinyl chloride recovery process and are connected to the closed vent system that collects and routes process vent emissions from process components to the vinyl chloride recovery system. After vinyl chloride recovery, any remaining process vent gasses are routed through the closed vent system to a control device. There are, however, emissions from gasholders that originate from the water seal and the outer portion of the floating bell that are fugitive in nature. The water seal contacts vinyl chloride and other HAP contained in the gasholder, and thus, there is the potential to emit HAP from the water in the gasholder seal and the thin film of water that accumulates on the outer surface of the floating bell. It is not technically practicable to route these emissions into or through a conveyance designed and constructed to capture and control them to an enforceable emission limit. Therefore, in the final rule, we are promulgating a work practice and equipment standard consistent with the provisions of section 112(h) of the CAA. In the final rule, we are requiring facilities to install and maintain floating objects on the surface of the gasholder water seal to minimize emissions of vinyl chloride and other HAP. We are also requiring facilities to develop a standard operating procedure for each gasholder to ensure that the floating objects are properly maintained and that emissions are minimized. G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and Reporting Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should remove CDD/CDF CEMS from the rule. The commenters contended that CDD/CDF CEMS technology is not well developed. One commenter stated that an EPA CDD/CDF CEMS study noted that, within the range of 1–10 ng/dscm, TEQ relative accuracy was reported between 23 percent and 75 percent. The commenter contended that the technology would not be useful with such a wide range of relative accuracy at the proposed limit. Another commenter stated that the technology is not commercially available in the United States. Another commenter indicated that monitors in use are mainly in other countries. Another commenter added that several of the available monitors are not continuous because they are not real E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22886 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES time and require using a third party lab for results. Response: We agree with the commenter on the availability of CEMS for CDD/CDF. CEMS for CDD/CDF and HCl are still being developed and the EPA does not have specifications for the technology currently. In the final rule, we have removed the requirement for CDD/CDF and HCl CEMS, but have retained them as an option for existing and new sources once performance specifications have been promulgated. H. Area Sources Comment: One commenter stated that, if the PVC MACT and GACT are combined, the EPA needs to fully consider the cost of the MACT on area sources and modify the requirements to minimize the burden on area sources. The commenter stated that GACT standards required by CAA section 112(d)(5) are different from MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(3) and, though the technologies employed in these facilities are similar, the EPA has not performed the required economic analysis in setting GACT. One commenter stated that, given the burdens on reduced workforces at smaller facilities, scaled-back requirements such as reduced stack testing frequency or reduced CPMS requirements are warranted and will have no negative impact on air emissions or compliance at area source facilities. The commenter added that the economic impact of the proposed PVC MACT on area sources makes these measures necessary for the facilities to remain financially viable. One commenter stated that the proposed GACT standard for process vents for vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are not appropriate or cost effective, based on small emissions reduction and high cost calculated in the EPA’s analysis. The commenter added that these limits are redundant since total organic HAP includes vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF and, thus, they contended that the vinyl chloride standards should be eliminated. One commenter made several comments regarding the pollutants proposed for regulation for area sources under GACT. The commenter stated that regulation of ‘‘total HAP’’ and ‘‘CDD/ CDF’’ under the area source GACT standard is not warranted because, although the agency has discretion to regulate all urban HAP for area sources, total HAP is not an urban HAP (they contend that classifying total HAP as an urban HAP would make the list meaningless), and CDD/CDF is not a HAP at all (thus, the EPA has no authority to regulate CDD/CDF under VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 CAA section 112). Furthermore, the commenter contended that control technologies already used by CertainTeed to control vinyl chloride also achieve control of individual organic HAP. For CDD/CDF, the commenter pointed out that the EPA’s own analysis showed that the proposed regulation would achieve little, if any, reductions. The commenter concluded that there is no benefit to establishing a standard for total HAP or CDD/CDF. The commenter added that the regulation of HCl under the area source GACT standard is not warranted either. They contended that, because the EPA has the discretion to revise the GACT standard only as necessary, the EPA must first determine that regulation of HCl is necessary. Instead, the commenter stated that the EPA seeks to regulate HCl emissions and suggests that such regulation is ‘‘appropriate’’ simply based on the fact that such emissions ‘‘are generated.’’ In light of this, the commenter concluded that the proposed GACT standards for HCl should not be finalized. Response: We proposed GACT standards for PVC area sources based on the proposed MACT standards for major sources. For the final rule, we have updated our analysis of area source GACT, considering comments received, including our analysis of cost considerations. Our revised GACT analysis assesses each PVC emission point (e.g., process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks, etc.) individually, for both existing and new sources, to determine the appropriate level of control, considering cost and emission reduction. The GACT analysis was conducted for the same subcategories as major sources. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ‘‘which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ We issued such standards for PVC area sources in 2007. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to ‘‘review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.’’ With this rulemaking, we are fulfilling our obligation to review and revise, as necessary, the PVC Production area source standards. The 2007 NESHAP for PVC Production area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD) are based on GACT. The area PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 source NESHAP set emission limits only for vinyl chloride, which was the pollutant for which we needed the PVC production area source category to meet our 90-percent obligation in CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). In this final rule, we are tightening emission standards for vinyl chloride under CAA section 112(d)(6). We are also establishing emission standards for CDD/CDF and THC for process vents (with an alternative compliance limit for total organic HAP) and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for stripped resins and wastewater under CAA section 112(d)(5). We are also requiring generally available management practices for PVC area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5). We are not setting separate limits for HCl from process vents at PVC area sources. In this final rule, we have determined that area source emission limits should be set for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, along with limits for CDD/CDF and vinyl chloride, for process vents, and for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and vinyl chloride for stripped resins and process wastewater. We discussed earlier in this preamble our specific reasons for establishing emissions limits for these pollutants from PVC facilities. We also determined that it is appropriate to provide a total organic HAP limit as an alternative to the THC limit for process vents at area sources, just as we did for PVC major sources. We disagree with the commenter who states that the EPA should not establish a total organic HAP limit (or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit for stripped resins and process wastewater) because total organic HAP is not an urban HAP. We note that the commenter concedes that the agency has discretion to regulate all urban HAP for area sources. The commenter also does not dispute that PVC facilities emit several organic urban HAP, beyond vinyl chloride. Moreover, as the EPA has explained in other area source rules, the agency has authority to regulate all HAP, not only urban HAP, from area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). See, e.g., Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP proposed rule, 73 FR 58352, 58358, October 6, 2008, and final rule, 74 FR 56008, 56017–18, October 29, 2009).4 4 CAA section 112(d)(5) states that for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), the Administrator may, in lieu of CAA section 112(d)(2) ‘‘MACT’’ standards, promulgate standards or requirements ‘‘applicable to sources’’ which provide for the use of GACT or management practices ‘‘to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ This provision does not limit the agency’s authority to regulating only urban HAP E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations We are setting emission limits for total organic HAP for process vents (and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for stripped resin and process wastewater) for several reasons. First, the compliance measures that we expect sources to adopt to meet the final limits are equally effective at controlling emissions of non-urban organic HAP as urban organic HAP. Second, there is little, if any, additional cost for implementing those compliance measures at PVC process vents, stripped resin and process wastewater. Third, we are applying the standards to total organic HAP or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP because many of the area sources emit a significant amount of non-urban organic HAP in addition to urban organic HAP, for example, the nationwide ratio of total organic HAP to urban organic HAP at affected area sources is more than 3 to 1. Finally, we believe our approach is consistent with certain industry comments that support using total organic HAP limits as the best means of achieving HAP emission reductions under CAA section 112(d) without fundamentally changing the PVC product being produced for sale by these facilities. We have determined that area sources will not have to install different controls or implement different compliance strategies and will incur little, if any, additional cost to comply with the standards for total organic HAP (and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP). Moreover, the commenter does not refute that the expected compliance measures in the PVC industry are equally effective at removing non-urban organic HAP, as urban organic HAP. For all of these reasons, we are applying these standards to process vents, stripped resin and process wastewater at PVC area sources. In addition, the comment that we should limit area source standards to only the urban organic HAP conflicts with other industry comments advocating THC as a surrogate. As we explained previously in preamble section V.C, THC is a reasonable surrogate for controlling all organic HAP from PVC process vents. However, while control of THC ensures control of all organic HAP (as does the total organic HAP alternative), THC cannot differentiate between organic HAP that is urban HAP and organic HAP that is not urban HAP. The commenter’s statement further conflicts with our determination that a total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit is an appropriate limit for stripped emissions for which the category was listed under CAA section 112(c)(3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 resins and process wastewater (see discussion at preamble section V.C). We disagree with the commenter’s statement that CDD/CDF is not a HAP. We are authorized to regulate the CDD/ CDF class of HAP. While dibenzofuran and 2,3,7,8-TCDD are identified by name as HAP in CAA section 112, all CDD/CDF are polycyclic organic matter and, as such, we have the authority to regulate these compounds. We disagree with the commenter who stated reduced stack testing frequency or reduced CPMS requirements are warranted for area sources. We believe that these requirements are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits regardless of the size of the facility or the magnitude of emissions. Therefore, the same testing and monitoring requirements apply to both major and area sources. Since the PVC-only and PVC-combined process vent area source limits are based on the facility in each subcategory, no additional controls would be needed and no emission reductions would occur. Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting would be the only costs. (See Tables 16 and 17 of this preamble.) We agree with the commenter that total organic HAP includes vinyl chloride and dioxins and furans, but we disagree that vinyl chloride standards should be eliminated, since vinyl chloride emissions limits already apply to PVC facilities under 40 CFR part 61, and they serve as a check on a unit’s recovery process efficiency and since physical measurement of vinyl chloride from process vents occurs only every 5 years. In determining what constitutes GACT for this final rule, we considered the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to PVC area sources by examining relevant data and information, including information collected from PVC area sources. We also considered the control measures applicable to PVC major sources to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. As part of the GACT determination, we considered the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on area sources which are documented in the technical memorandum, Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the docket. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ‘‘which provide for the use of generally PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22887 available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101–228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as: * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the analogous source category to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source categories at issue. We determined new and existing area source standards for each emission point by evaluating the current (also referred to as baseline) level of control and control options beyond the current level of control. For each emission point, we determined the current level of control for existing area sources, incorporating variability. If no area source currently exists in the category or subcategory, the least controlled major source, in each subcategory for each regulated pollutant, as applicable, was analyzed as the baseline level of control for GACT. The only two existing PVC area sources that we are aware of produce bulk resin and suspension resin, respectively. No existing area sources produce dispersion resin, suspension blending resin or copolymer resin. However, if an existing PVC major source is able to become a synthetic area source, e.g., by taking a federally enforceable limit on its potential to emit, before the first compliance date of this rule, it would be subject to area source rather than major source PVC NESHAP requirements. Therefore, in order to develop GACT standards for other stripped resin subcategories, we determined the baseline level of control for these subcategories in which there is E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22888 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations no existing area source to be equivalent to that of the least controlled major source, i.e., for the dispersion, suspension blending and copolymer subcategories for stripped resins. For the suspension blending and copolymer subcategories, there is only one major source. So for these subcategories of stripped resin, the level of control of the least controlled major source was the same as the major source MACT floor level of control. In addition, gasholders are the only emission source that are located at major sources, but not located at area sources. Therefore, we determined that the baseline level of control for gasholders is equivalent to that of the least controlled PVC major source with a small gasholder. We believe that all future possible existing area sources should be able to achieve these levels of control, as we predict that most, if not all, such sources will be major sources that limit their potential to emit to levels below the major source thresholds before the first substantive compliance date of this rule. See 42 U.S.C. 112(a)(1); 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of ‘‘potential to emit’’). For equipment leaks, heat exchange systems and storage vessels, we determined that the level of control was the same as the major source work practice standards. We are also establishing new source GACT. We have data from the two existing area source facilities, and those facilities form the basis of our new source GACT analysis. For the PVCcombined process vents, PVC-only process vents, bulk resin and suspension resin subcategories, we have data from one area source facility. For the other emission points (except for dispersion resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin discussed in the previous paragraph) both facilities are equivalent in terms of their current level of control. For equipment leaks, the CertainTeed Lake Charles facility and the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility both comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Therefore, we find that the level of control for new area sources is equivalent to the level of control for existing area sources. Control options beyond the current or baseline level of control for existing sources were analyzed on a basis of cost effectiveness. We determined the emission reductions, if any, associated with existing PVC area sources meeting levels of control more stringent than the current or baseline level of control. We then estimated the annual cost of testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and any operating and maintenance costs associated with control devices required to meet the more stringent control levels. We VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 developed a cost- effectiveness estimate by dividing the annual cost of the more stringent control level with the annual emission reduction. The control options analyzed are as follows: For PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and existing area sources, for each subcategory, we analyzed two additional control options beyond the current level of control. The first option was requiring the current level of control, as discussed above, and the testing and monitoring requirements for process vents at existing major sources. The same types of controls are used at both existing area and major sources. The testing and monitoring necessary to ensure compliance with the emission limits and to ensure proper operation of the control device are the same regardless of the size of the control device. The second option was requiring meeting the emission limits for existing major sources in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major sources. For PVC-only process vents at new and existing area sources, we determined that the second option was not cost effective; instead, we concluded that the first option was appropriate. We determined that the major source testing and monitoring requirements are appropriate and necessary to ensure that area sources are in compliance with the process vent standards, whether those required standards are the current level of control or major source standards. Therefore, we are requiring PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the current level of control and the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major sources. For stripped resins at new and existing PVC area sources, we analyzed two additional control options beyond the current or baseline level of control for each subcategory. The first option was requiring the current or baseline level of control and the testing and monitoring requirements for stripped resins at existing major sources. The second option was meeting the emission limits for existing major sources in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major sources. For the bulk and suspension resin subcategories, we are setting the stripped resin limits for new and existing area sources equivalent to their current level of control, accounting for variability, and testing and monitoring requirements for major sources for each stripped resin subcategory. For dispersion resins, GACT is based on the baseline level of control, i.e., the least controlled major source and limits were PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 developed for dispersion resins based on data from that source. For the suspension blending and copolymer resin subcategories, we are requiring the emission limits for existing major sources since there was only one source in each of these subcategories (i.e., the baseline level of control was the level of control the existing major source) in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major sources. Similar to process vents, we determined that it is appropriate to require testing and monitoring requirements for major sources to ensure compliance. For process and maintenance wastewater at new and existing PVC area sources, we analyzed three additional control options beyond the current baseline. The first option was requiring the current level of control and the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at existing major sources. The second option was meeting the emission limits for existing major sources in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at existing major sources. The third option was meeting the emission limits for new major sources in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at existing major sources. We determined that the second option of emission limits for existing major sources was less stringent than (i.e., not beyond) the current baseline for new and existing area sources. We determined that the third option of emission limits for new major sources were not cost effective for new or existing PVC area sources. Therefore, we are requiring process and maintenance wastewater at new and existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the current baseline and the major source testing and monitoring requirements. Similar to process vents, we determined that it is appropriate to require testing and monitoring requirements for major sources and necessary to ensure that area sources are in compliance with the process and maintenance wastewater standards. For equipment leaks and for heat exchangers at new and existing PVC area sources, we analyzed one additional control option beyond the current level of control. The additional option was meeting the emission standards for equipment leaks and for heat exchangers at existing major sources. We determined that the emission standards for equipment leaks and heat exchangers at existing major sources are cost effective for new and existing area sources. Therefore, we are requiring new and existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22889 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations equipment leak and heat exchanger standards at existing major sources. For storage tanks at new and existing PVC area sources, we analyzed one additional control option beyond the current baseline. The additional option was meeting the emission standards for storage tanks at existing major sources. We determined the emission standards for storage tanks at existing major sources are cost effective for new and existing area sources. Therefore, we are requiring new and existing area sources comply with GACT by meeting the emission standards for existing major sources. For other emission sources, the current level of control is emission standards for reactor and other equipment openings equivalent to the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, which is also equivalent to the major source level of control. We analyzed an additional option for gasholders equivalent to the emission standards for gasholders at major sources. The option was determined to be cost effective for new and existing area sources. Therefore, we are requiring that new and existing area sources comply with GACT by meeting the emission standards for gasholders and reactor openings at major sources. Tables 16 and 17 present a summary of the control options analysis for new and existing area sources. TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING AREA SOURCES Incremental annual cost of compliance ($/yr) Emission reductions (tpy—total HAP) Cost effectiveness ($/ton total HAP) Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control PVC-only process vents Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 180,245 10,890 0 0.257 0 (a) 701,814 (a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 10,615 0 0 (a) ( a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,615 19,777 0 0 (a) (a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... New Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ................. Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 19,777 2,996,390 72,525 25,529 3,108 3,108 0 12.2 9.29 15.1 0 0 (a) 245,516 7,807 1,691 b $4,921 c 2,000– 12,000 PVC- combined process vents. Stripped resins (all subcategories). Process and maintenance wastewater. Equipment leaks ............ Heat exchangers ........... Other emission sources Storage tanks ................ a Option does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable. reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting a model small gasholder with floating objects to reduce emissions from the gasholder water seal. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness was equal to $4,921 per ton of vinyl chloride reduced. We are not aware of any gasholders operated at existing PVC area sources; therefore no emission reductions are shown. c Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW controls on model fixed roof tanks meeting 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb vapor pressure and size parameters. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted by PVC production facilities, no storage vessels from affected sources that meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels meeting capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels would be constructed at a new source. $/yr—dollars per year. tpy—tons per year. $/Ton Total HAP—dollars per ton of total HAP. b Emission TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS FOR NEW AREA SOURCES Incremental annual cost of compliance ($/yr) Emission reductions (tpy—total HAP) Cost effectiveness ($/ton total HAP) Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control PVC-only process vents Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 180,245 10,890 0 0.257 0 (a) 701,814 ( a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 10,615 0 0 (a) ( a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,615 9,888 0 0 (a) (a) Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... New Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ................. Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 9,888 1,988,368 36,263 12,764 3,032 0 8.91 4.64 11.4 0.616 (a) 223,169 7,807 1,117 4,922 PVC-combined process vents. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Stripped resins (all subcategories). Process and maintenance wastewater. Equipment leaks ............ Heat exchangers ........... Other emission sources VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22890 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS FOR NEW AREA SOURCES—Continued Incremental annual cost of compliance ($/yr) Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control Storage tanks ................ Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 1,554 Emission reductions (tpy—total HAP) 0 Cost effectiveness ($/ton total HAP) b 2,000– 12,000 a Option sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable. b Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW controls on model fixed roof tanks meeting 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb vapor pressure and size parameters. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted by PVC production facilities, no storage vessels from affected sources that meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels meeting capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels would be constructed at a new source. $/yr—dollars per year. tpy—tons per year. $/Ton Total HAP—dollars per ton of total HAP. A detailed discussion of these options and the cost and impacts estimated for them is found in the memorandum, Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. The results of the GACT analysis are presented in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble. The summary of the area source requirements in the final rule is discussed in section IV.I of this preamble. Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s proposed equipment leak standards. The commenters stated that the EPA’s estimates of baseline fugitive emissions are not valid and not representative of CertainTeed’s actual measured fugitive emissions from equipment leaks, because EPA estimated the emissions from equipment leaks by applying average emission factors instead of relying on actual measured data. The commenter contended that because of these estimates, the EPA grossly overestimated the level of fugitive emission reductions. The commenter concluded that because of these overestimations, the cost of the proposed Equipment Leak GACT standards cannot be justified by the potential emission reductions. Response: At proposal, we estimated baseline emissions and reductions for fugitive emissions from equipment leaks using the 1995 EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. We agree with the commenter that the 1995 factors yield conservatively high estimates of actual emissions. As part of the technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, the EPA has developed new emission factors for equipment leaks that better represent fugitive emissions at chemical VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 manufacturing processes and petroleum refineries. Emission factors were developed using facility data from the MON MACT floor development and the EPA Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. (Please refer to the memorandum in the docket titled Technology Review for Equipment Leaks for additional information regarding the development of new emission factors for equipment leaks.) Although the commenter provided annual fugitive emissions from equipment leaks for years 2007 through 2010, the commenter did not provide any equipment leak monitoring records, test reports or additional documentation supporting their emission estimates. Therefore, we have chosen to estimate fugitive emissions for both major and area sources using the updated emission factors for consistency across all PVCPU. Using updated emission factors and equipment counts provided by CertainTeed where available, we have updated the baseline emission estimate for fugitive HAP emissions from equipment leaks at the CertainTeed facility to 10 tpy. We have also updated our emissions reduction estimate to 4.64 tpy of HAP as a result of the facility complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We have also updated the total capital investment and total annualized costs of the CertainTeed facility complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU and installing and operating a PRD monitoring system using equipment counts where provided by the facility. The analysis is documented in the memorandum titled Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category in the PVC docket. The total cost effectiveness is estimated to equal PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 $6,840 dollars per ton of total HAP; therefore, we are finalizing the requirements for area sources to comply with subpart UU and install and operate a PRD monitoring system. I. Definitions The following definitions have been revised since the proposal: Batch process vent, conservation vent, continuous process vent, grade, in HAP service, operating scenario, polyvinyl chloride, PVC production process unit or PVCPU, polyvinyl chloride copolymer, pressure relief device, process vent, solution process, type of resin and wastewater. We have revised the definition of batch process vent to provide consistency with our revisions to the definitions of continuous process vent and process vent and to clarify that batch process vents must be routed to a closed vent system and control device. We also clarify that all emission episodes associated with a batch unit operation are part of the batch process vent. We have also removed language from the definition that excluded certain types of vents or vents from certain components or equipment. In the final rule, batch process vent means a vent from a batch operation from a PVCPU through which a HAPcontaining gas stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device. Emissions for all emission episodes associated with the unit operation(s) are part of the batch process vent. Batch process vents also include vents with intermittent flow from continuous operations. Examples of batch process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for product recovery, polymerization reactors and process tanks. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations We have revised the definition of conservation vent to provide additional clarification. In the final rule, conservation vent means an automatically operated (e.g., weightloaded or spring-loaded) safety device used to prevent the operating pressure of a storage vessel from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents must be designed to open only when the operating pressure of the storage vessel exceeds the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents open and close to permit only the intake or outlet relief necessary to keep the storage vessel within permissible working pressures, and reseal automatically. We have revised the definition of continuous process vent to provide consistency with our revisions to the definitions of batch process vent and process vent. We also clarify that continuous process vents must be routed to a closed vent system and control device. In the final rule, continuous process vent means a vent from a continuous PVCPU operation through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere, except that it is required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device and has the following characteristics: (1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU. (2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control device meets at least one of the following conditions: (i) Is directly from any continuous operation. (ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU. (iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy from a gas stream that comes either directly from any continuous operation or from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU. We have revised the definition of grade to specify resin ‘‘type’’ instead of resin ‘‘classification’’ since resins are first classified by type, and types are further subdivided into grades. We have also provided an example of a resin grade. In the final rule, grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it as a unique resin, i.e., the most exact description of a type of resin with no VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 further subdivision. Examples include LMW suspension resins and general purpose suspension resins. We have revised the definition of in HAP service. In the final rule, in HAP service means that a process component either contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP, as determined according to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d). For the purposes of this definition, the term ‘‘in organic HAP service,’’ as used in 40 CFR 63.180(d), means ‘‘in HAP service.’’ The provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a process component is not in HAP service. We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride to clarify that it includes homopolymers and copolymers. In the final rule, polyvinyl chloride means either polyvinyl chloride homopolymer or polyvinyl chloride copolymer. We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or (PVCPU) to remove components that are storage tanks or vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and wastewater collection and treatment systems, and add instrumentation systems. Multiple PVCPU may be located at the same affected source and share storage tanks, heat exchange systems and process wastewater treatment systems. Therefore this shared equipment has been removed from the definition of a PVCPU and is now included in the definition of the affected source instead of the PVCPU. In the final rule, polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or (PVCPU) means a collection of process components assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl chloride copolymers. A PVCPU includes, but is not limited to, polymerization reactors; resin stripping operations; resin blend tanks; resin centrifuges; resin dryers; resin product separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw material charge vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing tanks; finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; equipment including pumps, compressors, agitators, PRD, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves and connectors and instrumentation systems. A PVCPU does not include chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in 40 CFR 63.101, that produce VCM or other raw PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22891 materials used in the PVC polymerization process. We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride copolymer to clarify that polyvinyl chloride copolymers can also be produced using a suspension blending process. In the final rule, polyvinyl chloride copolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the simultaneous polymerization of vinyl chloride and another monomer, such as vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by different processes, including, but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending and solution processes. We have revised the definition of pressure relief device to remove the condition that devices actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not PRD. In the final rule, pressure relief device means a safety device used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. A common PRD is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. We have revised the definition of process vent to provide consistency with our revised definitions of batch process vent and continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent. In the final rule, process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the manifolding of each and all batch process vent, continuous process vent or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected facility into a closed vent system and into a common header that is routed to a control device. The process vent standards apply at the outlet of the control device. A process vent is either a PVC-only process vent or a PVC-combined process vent. We have revised the definition of solution processes to specify that the process produces a polyvinyl chloride copolymer instead of only a polyvinyl chloride resin. In the final rule, solution process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride copolymer resin that is characterized by the anhydrous formation of the polymer through precipitation. Polymerization occurs in an organic solvent in the presence of an initiator where VCM and co-monomers are soluble in the solvent, but the polymer is not. The PVC copolymer is a granule suspended in the solvent, which then precipitates out of solution. Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not used in the solution process. Copolymer resins produced using the solution process are referred to as solution resins. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22892 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations At proposal, we defined a surge control vessel as part of any continuous operation. However, based on industry comments, gasholders meet the definition of a surge control vessel although gasholders may receive and introduce material into batch processes in addition to continuous processes. Therefore, we have modified the definition of a surge control vessel to reflect the definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H and remove the specification that surge control vessels must be used as part of a continuous operation and introduce material into continuous operations. We have, however, modified the definition from 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, to specify that surge control vessels are used within an affected source (and not solely a process unit) since PVCPU may share gasholders. In the final rule, surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums and intermediate vessels used as a part of any continuous operation. Surge control vessels are used within an affected source when in-process storage, mixing or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous operations. Surge control vessels also include gasholders. We have revised the definition of type of resin to include additional resin types identified by commenters after proposal, specifically blending types of resin. In the final rule, type of resin means the broad classification of resin referring to the basic manufacturing process for producing that resin, including, but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/ emulsion, suspension blending, bulk and solution processes. We have revised the definition of wastewater to mirror definitions in other chemical sector rules, such as the HON, for consistency as several facilities are currently subject to multiple wastewater provisions. We have also specified what is not considered wastewater. In the final rule, wastewater means process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this subpart: (1) Stormwater from segregated sewers; (2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing of such systems; (3) Spills; (4) Water from safety showers; (5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the method of analysis that is used; (6) Equipment leaks; (7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses after cleaning lines; and (8) Noncontact cooling water. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 The following definitions have been added to the final rule: gasholder, hardpiping, heat exchanger exit line, maintenance wastewater, miscellaneous vent, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer, process wastewater, process wastewater treatment system, PVC-combined process vent, PVC-only process vent, suspension blending process, table 10 HAP, total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and wastewater stream. We have added a definition for polyvinyl chloride homopolymers to distinguish between homopolymers and copolymers. During the comment period, industry provided additional resin data distinguishing homopolymers and copolymers and is based largely on the proposed definition for polyvinyl chloride. For reasons discussion in section V.D of this preamble, we have set limits for five subcategories of resin, including copolymers. Therefore, the new definitions are necessary to distinguish between homopolymers and copolymers. The definitions are based on the information provided in comments. In the final rule, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the polymerization of vinyl chloride and has the general chemical structure (-H2CCHCl-)n. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is typically a white powder or colorless granule. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymers are produced by different processes, including (but not limited to) suspension, dispersion/ emulsion, blending and bulk processes. At proposal, we did not set separate limits for suspension blending resins. During the comment period, industry provided additional resin data regarding suspension blending resins. As described in section V.D of this preamble, we have set limits for five types of resin, including suspension blending. Therefore, a definition to distinguish suspension blending resins from other resin types is necessary. The definition is based on the information provided in comments. In the final rule, suspension blending process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that is similar to the suspension polymerization process, but employs a rate of agitation that is significantly higher than the highest range for non-blending suspension resins. The suspension blending process uses a recipe that creates extremely small resin particles, generally equal to or less than 100 microns in size, with a glassy surface and very little porosity. The suspension blending process concentrates the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically designed to handle these small particles. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Polyvinyl chloride resins produced using the suspension blending process are referred to as blending resins and are typically blended with dispersion resins. At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. For the final rule, we are subcategorizing process vents into PVConly and PVC-combined vents for reasons discussed in section V.D of this preamble. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the two process vent subcategories. In the final rule, PVC-only process vent means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is not combined with a process vent originating from another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere. In the final rule, PVCcombined process vent means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is combined with one or more process vents originating from another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere. At proposal, we did not have information on gasholders and did not propose standards for them. Following proposal, industry provided comment on control options and cost information for gasholders and we have included requirements for gasholders in the final rule. Therefore it was necessary to add a definition for gasholders to the final rule. The definition is based on information provided in comments. In the final rule, gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating in a vessel filled with water and is used to store gases from the PVC production process prior to being recovered or sent to a process vent control device. The bell rises and lowers as low-pressure gases enter and leave the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal between the enclosed gas within the floating bell and the ambient air. At proposal, we did not define maintenance wastewater, but instead, required that all wastewater be subject to the same proposed provisions. We received comments from industry contending that quantifying a concentration to establish compliance for maintenance wastewater would be extremely difficult if not impossible because maintenance activities are highly variable. Industry also noted that HAP are minimized in maintenance wastewater by requiring that components meet applicable opening standards before the introduction of water for cleaning. The final rule includes provisions that address process and maintenance wastewater separately; therefore, we have added definitions for maintenance wastewater and process wastewater to the final rule. The definitions are based on those provided E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES in the HON, because the wastewater streams are similar and, in some cases, they are co-located. In the final rule, maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components such as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system, draining of portions of the PVCPU for repair and water used to wash out process components or equipment after the process components or equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere and has met the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11955. In the final rule, process wastewater means water that comes into direct contact with HAP or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product or waste product containing HAP, but that has not been discharged untreated as wastewater. Examples are product tank drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during a chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic products or reactants; water used to cool or quench organic vapor streams through direct contact; water discarded from a control device; and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels containing organics. Gasholder seal water is not process wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder. In the final rule, wastewater stream means a stream that contains only wastewater as defined in this section. Also in the final rule, table 10 HAP means a HAP compound listed in table 10 of final rule. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the measured concentrations of each table 10 compound as calculated according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.11960(e) and 40 CFR 63.11980(b). J. Cost and Emission Impacts Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that costs for PRD are greatly underestimated. One commenter estimated that retrofitting existing PRD with release indicators will cost $5,000 per PRD. The commenter stated that these costs include the actual VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 measurement device itself, installation labor, wiring back to the control room, input/output cards in distributed control system (DCS) and initial configuration (programming) of the DCS for alarms, logging, etc. The commenter stated that with two facilities each containing over 100 PRD the total cost would be over $1,000,000 to retrofit. Another commenter also cited an estimate of $5,000 if a wireless pressure monitoring device is used, or $10,000 per PRD if a more substantial flow monitoring device is needed. The commenter estimated the cost for its three facilities with 393 total PRD would range from $1,965,000 to $3,930,000 to retrofit. A third commenter estimated a cost of $10,000 to retrofit each PRD, accounting for installation and integration into the process control system. With approximately 200 PRD at a facility, the commenter estimated a total cost of $2,000,000. One commenter also noted that if the EPA is requesting pressure switches between the rupture discs and the safety valves, this is ‘‘relatively’’ easy to accomplish because it would require the instrument, communication wiring, and a small amount of piping. This commenter also requested that the EPA make it clearer whether flow indication or pressure indication is required in the proposed rule. Additionally, one commenter stated that multiple systems for release indication already exist within PVC operations. One commenter expressed concern about bypass flow indicator costs. The commenter stated that a conservative estimate to install bypass flow indicators is similar to that for flow indication on PRD, approximately $5,000 per open ended line. Considering there are hundreds of such lines, the commenter indicated that installation cost could exceed $1,000,000 per facility. Response: The EPA maintains that the capital cost estimate of $188,900 and annual cost estimate of $26,900 per facility is appropriate. Although commenters provided cost estimates for particular facilities, costs provided in the comment letters were general in nature, and the commenters did not provide documentation or detailed cost analyses such that the provided estimates could be reviewed. Therefore, we must estimate costs for all facilities using a consistent methodology which is based on data collected by the EPA. We developed our cost estimate for electronic PRD monitoring systems using the Proposed Amended Rule 1173—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22893 Chemical Plants, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Other commenters have stated that most PVC plants ‘‘typically have rupture discs installed below relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere, and monitor the space between the rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on a routine basis using a local pressure indicator and log this information for safety purposes.’’ The EPA maintains that a facility must use a monitor to indicate an emission release to the atmosphere; the type of indicator is left to the facility. Comment: Several commenters took issue with the cost estimates related to resin stripping. The commenters stated that current technology will not allow facilities to meet the resin limits and indicated that it will be necessary to develop new technology and the associated costs will be much greater than the current EPA stripped resin cost estimate. One commenter stated that millions of dollars will be required to develop the technology and install equipment. Commenters contended that improvements in PVC resin stripping beyond that which can be achieved to meet new MACT floor HAP concentrations are not feasible due to thermal degradation of PVC resins with elevated heat histories (combination of higher temperatures and residence times). One commenter added that steam is one of many components in the resin stripping process, but it cannot be used as the sole or primary control technique without seriously degrading the resin product. Commenters indicated that some types and grades of resin are sensitive to heat history such as that incurred by steam stripping and that color and heat stability can be negatively impacted by excess heat history. Several commenters disagreed with the EPA’s conclusion that PVCPU would only need to use additional steam in existing equipment to strip resin to comply with the proposed vinyl chloride and total HAP emission limits. Commenters also indicated that the effectiveness of certain types of stripping technologies is not increased by the addition of steam above energy balance requirements. Another commenter added that PVC resins, some types and grades more than others, are sensitive to heat such as that incurred by steam stripping. One commenter stated that the EPA offered no substantiation for the claim that more steam in existing equipment would provide for anything more than negligible reductions in vinyl chloride and HAP levels in stripped resin. The commenter added that two of the major E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations licensors of PVC resin stripping technology have said they would not guarantee new equipment, let alone existing equipment, could meet the proposed limit of 0.48 ppmw of vinyl chloride for all resins. Commenters indicated that for some PVC grades, a significant column retrofit or replacement would be necessary to meet more stringent resin limits. Response: For the final rule, we revised the methodology used to estimate cost impacts for stripped resin based on the comments and additional cost data provided by commenters. For the proposed rule, costs of affected sources meeting the proposed concentration standards for stripped resins were estimated by calculating the amount of additional steam required to strip vinyl chloride and total HAP to the proposed concentration standards. Based on comments and information provided by commenters, we agree that costing additional steam may not be the appropriate control technique to meet the stripped resin limits. For the final rule, we estimated costs of affected sources demonstrating compliance with the final stripped resin concentration standards by calculating the cost of installing a new resin stripper, based on information provided by commenters. We did not include annual costs other than the amortized capital investment since affected sources must currently pay for the operation and maintenance of their current resin strippers. Additionally, we have revised MACT floor calculations, as discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble. The revised MACT floor and impacts analyses show that one facility will not be able to meet the final limits. Based on information received during the public comment period, we estimate the one facility not able to meet the final limits will be required to install a new resin stripper with a total capital cost of $10 million and a total incremental annual cost of $944,000 per year. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the costs imposed by wastewater compliance requirements. One commenter contended that requiring monthly sampling for HAP in wastewater will impose undue hardship on facilities when they are required to perform continuous monitoring of stripper operating levels as well. This commenter estimated an additional $65,000 per year from the monthly sampling. Another commenter stated that due to the low wastewater vinyl chloride limit, the cost for controls will be much higher. The commenter added that simply adding steam will be insufficient and that it will be necessary VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 to replace the stripper at a cost of $3,400,000 with annual operating costs of $636,000. One commenter recommended that the HAP control requirements (testing, sampling, etc.) should be removed from the wastewater rule since no emission benefit is achieved. Response: Similar to our decision for stripped resins in the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous parametric monitoring of wastewater strippers. The requirements to conduct periodic sampling for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP are sufficient to assure compliance with the stripped resin limits. We have also established a revised limit for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP from process wastewater. Monthly sampling and analysis for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP is necessary to ensure that the limits are being met on a continuous basis. We have also substantially reduced the burden on facilities by only requiring reanalysis of untreated streams once per year to ensure that those streams are below the process wastewater limits and that they do not require treatment. These changes have significantly reduced the burden of the final rule. K. Economic Impacts Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the economic ramifications of the proposed rule to PVC producers and consumers. The commenters stated that the EPA did not adequately quantify the effect to the entire PVC supply chain when considering the rule and that as a result many hardships and changes will occur. Commenters contended that impacts will be cascaded down the supply chain and increase cost of doing business. One commenter encouraged the agency to review and carefully consider these impacts in light of the Obama Administration’s Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which calls for review and revision of regulations that stifle job creation and economic growth. Commenters argued the PVC MACT will impact a company’s competitiveness in the global market, where overseas PVC producers are not subject to such stringent regulations. One commenter expressed concern with the impact on construction of new plants; the proposed PVC rule will pose a significant deterrent to any company that considers citing new or reconstructed PVC manufacturing in the United States causing additional harm to the economy. Several commenters expressed concern that if enacted without significant revision, the PVC PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 rule will result in the closure of several plants in the United States. One commenter representing the chlor-alkali industry provided an example of how the PVC rule will impact related industries. The commenter stated that as currently proposed compliance by United States PVC manufacturing facilities with the MACT will cause a 4-percent–8-percent reduction in demand in the domestic chlorine market. Based on average industry pending patterns and laboroutput ratios, in total, between 3,300 and 6,600 jobs are at risk. Commenters expressed concern regarding the economic impacts to several industries, including: the wall covering industry, the vinyl flooring industry, resilient flooring operations, pipe applications and the vinyl siding products industry. Several commenters contended that the PVC rule would result in loss of performance characteristics and cost increases due to discontinuation and substitution of a different quality or type of resin for a previously formulated material, engineering changes, such as retooling or the necessary investment in new or replacement equipment due to the different types or qualities of resin and different formulations, and loss of time as new formulations may take years to develop and refine for their intended application. The commenters contended that over 100 types and grades of PVC resins will be affected, resulting in significant impact on how compounders, converters and fabricators operate, potentially changing product performance or raising costs. Other Two commenters stated that the net cost to consumers in the United States and Canada for the substitution of alternative materials for the PVC-based products that they currently use would be almost $17.7 billion dollars per year, plus an additional $5.6 billion in new investment to manufacture the incremental volume of substitute material and an associated $2.8 billion per year in capital recovery charges (details for numbers are in the document, The Economic Benefits of Polyvinyl Chloride in the United States and Canada, released by the American Chemistry Council and The Vinyl Institute in 2008). Several commenters expressed concern that imposing overly stringent requirements on PVC resin manufacturers will significantly increase imports from foreign sources and result in less domestic competition. Response: The final rule contains several revisions that reduce the annual cost of the final rules by more than 75 percent from proposal ($19.7 million per year at proposal to $4.1 million per E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations year for the final rules, for major and area sources combined). These revisions are discussed in section VI of this preamble. For the reasons described above, we have revised subcategories and the MACT floor calculation for stripped resins resulting in revised limits for stripped resins. These changes result in stripped resin limits that are achievable by 15 out of 16 sources without installation of additional controls. Based on information received during the public comment period, the EPA estimates the one facility not able to meet the final stripped resin limits for major sources will be required to install a new resin stripper with a total capital cost of $10 million and an incremental annual cost of $944,000 per year. As a result, the final rule does not impose a significant burden on the source category as a whole. The commenters also did not supply any data or analysis to justify their assertions regarding potential plant closures, negative employment impacts, reduction in demand for chlorine, negative effects on the PVC supply chain, possible increases in imports or other economic harm. Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the lack of consideration given to small businesses. The commenter stated that the EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis identified only eight companies affected by the proposed rule. The commenter added that because all eight of these companies have more than 1,500 employees and annual revenues above $2 billion, the EPA certified the proposed rule and declared no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, no regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared by the agency. However, the commenter contended, the EPA did not host any ‘‘SBREFA panels’’ prior to reaching this conclusion, preventing the small business community from providing relevant input on the proposed rule’s impacts. The commenter stated that there will be higher costs due to the PVC MACT which could be passed along the supply chain in the form of higher prices to customers, many of whom may be small businesses and less able to absorb regulation-induced price increases. The commenter concluded that the EPA should amend its analysis to investigate the secondary effect of the regulation on small businesses down the supply chain. Response: The analysis of impacts on small entities called for by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (SBREFA), is to cover small entities directly affected by a rule. The RFA does not require indirect or secondary impacts to be included in a small entity analysis. This is consistent with the EPA’s interpretation of the RFA as amended by SBREFA. Only rules that will have a direct significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the rule require an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (see 5 U.S.C. sections 603–605). L. Affirmative Defense Comment: Several commenters opposed the EPA’s affirmative defense requirements. One commenter contended it is unlawful and arbitrary because, although the EPA has eliminated its compliance exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, the agency’s final rule includes an ‘‘affirmative defense to penalties that purports to bar courts from imposing any penalties on sources that violate their emission standards during a malfunction and satisfy certain agency created conditions related to preventing malfunctions and controlling malfunction emissions.’’ This commenter contended that in this proposal, the EPA acts outside of its delegated authority to limit civil penalties available in citizen suits or its own enforcement actions, and the proposal will impermissibly chill citizen participation and the ability to win an effective, deterrent remedy in CAA enforcement actions. The commenter added that the affirmative defense would likely be used on a routine basis by polluters seeking to avoid penalties, imposing a technical burden on citizens seeking civil penalties against polluters. Another commenter opposed incorporating affirmative defense penalties into regulations. The commenter stated that the EPA has discretion to decide what cases to prosecute, to consider settlements and to request civil penalties in a case-bycase manner, as long as it acts consistent with the CAA to protect clean air as its top priority and, thus, the commenter believes that promulgating this affirmative defense will allow polluters to claim that any violation of the standard is due to a malfunction in order to evade the requirements. Another commenter requested that if affirmative defense is promulgated, the EPA specify the amount of compensatory damages should apply to each malfunction, modify the rule so that affirmative defense cannot be used by a specific facility or company more PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22895 than once within a set period of time, and require public reporting of malfunctions or emissions exceedances. Response: The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule in an attempt to balance a tension inherent in many types of air regulation to ensure adequate compliance, while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish emission standards that ‘‘limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ‘‘emission limitation and emission standard’’). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that CAA section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations, on the one hand, are required, there is also caselaw indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the District of Columbia Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111, ‘‘variant provisions,’’ such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction ‘‘appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ See also, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments calls into question the relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating ‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). But, see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are ‘‘continuous,’’ as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and, thus, support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. The EPA is not adopting commenters’ suggestion with respect to compensatory damages or limits on the frequency of use of the affirmative defense. It is not clear that EPA has authority to require the automatic imposition of compensatory damages and even if such authority exists, the EPA does not think automatic imposition of damages is appropriate. Ensuring that malfunctions do not recur can be handled through imposition of appropriate injunctive relief. In addition, the EPA’s view is that it would not be appropriate to limit a source’s ability to take advantage of the affirmative defense to one time over a specified period of time, such as 10 years, given that the affirmative defense is only available when the source could not have prevented the excess emissions. With respect to commenters’ suggested reporting requirements, the reporting requirements in the rule promulgated here already require malfunction reporting and the affirmative defense provisions require that parties choosing to assert the affirmative defense meet additional malfunction reporting requirements. Any such reports submitted to the EPA are publicly available pursuant to CAA section 114. M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses At proposal, we determined that the control technologies that would be needed to achieve the proposed MACT floor levels for process vents are generally the most effective controls available for reducing vinyl chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/CDF and we estimated the costs for those technologies for facilities that did not meet the proposed limits for process vents. Furthermore, at proposal, we did not identify any beyond-the-floor options for process vents. For the final rule, as a beyond-the-floor option for process vents (i.e., PVC-only and PVCcombined process vents), we assessed the costs and emission reductions for existing major source facilities to meet the new source limits for both process vent subcategories by using enhanced vinyl chloride recovery (via an upgraded refrigerated condenser). Based on the resulting analysis of the cost effectiveness, we determined it is not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 either subcategory of process vents at existing sources. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. For stripped resin at existing and new major sources, we analyzed the same beyond-the-floor option as at proposal, and determined it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for stripped resin at existing and new major sources considering the cost and emission reductions of this option. For equipment leaks, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option at existing sources of complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2, instead of the MACT floor level of control, compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Based on the results of the analysis, which are presented in Tables 16 and 18 of this preamble, we determined that it is appropriate that MACT for equipment leaks at existing and new major sources require compliance with subpart UU level 2, considering the cost and emission reductions of this option. The MACT floor level of control for new sources, compliance with subpart UU level 2, was identified as the most effective control of emissions from equipment leaks. Therefore, no beyondthe-floor HAP emission reduction approaches were identified for equipment leaks at new major sources. This analysis is discussed in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-theFloor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. For heat exchange systems, we determined that the final leak action level and monitoring interval are generally the most effective LDAR program to control emissions from heat exchange systems. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor options were identified for heat exchange systems at existing or new major sources. At proposal and for the final rule, we determined it is appropriate for storage vessels at existing and new major sources meeting specific vapor pressure and storage capacity parameters specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb to comply with the control requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW as a beyond-the-floor control considering cost and emission reductions. This analysis is discussed in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-theFloor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. At proposal, we analyzed a beyondthe-floor option for wastewater of PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 treating streams with HAP concentration greater than 1,000 ppmw (of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Table 9 HAP), and annual average flow rates greater than 10 liters per minute. In the final rule, we determined the MACT floor level of control for wastewater to includes concentration limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. Consequently, we analyzed a different beyond-the-floor options for wastewater, requiring all currently uncontrolled process wastewater (e.g., wastewater from scrubbers and heat exchange systems) to be conveyed to, and treated by, a wastewater stripping unit. Based on the results of this analysis, we determined it is not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for wastewater at existing and new major sources considering the cost and emission reductions of this option. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. At proposal, we did not identify any beyond-the-floor options for gasholders; however, we did solicit comments on control options for gasholders. Based on the information provided in comments, for the final rule, we analyzed a beyondthe-floor option of minimizing fugitive emissions by requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal at existing and new sources. Based on the results of the analysis, which are presented in Tables 16 and 18 of this preamble, we determined that it is appropriate to require gasholders at existing and new major sources reduce their fugitive emissions by using floating objects on the surface of the water seal as a beyond-the-floor control, considering cost and emission reductions. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-theFloor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rules The impacts presented in this section include the impacts for PVC production facilities to comply with the final rules, and with the requirements of other subparts referenced by the final rules. A. What are the air impacts? We have estimated the potential emission reductions that are expected to be realized through implementation of the final rules. Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions estimated for existing major sources. The table shows the emission reductions for each pollutant and emission point. Table 18 of this preamble also summarizes the emission E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22897 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations reductions for the beyond-the-floor options selected for existing major sources (i.e., control of equipment leaks, storage vessels and gasholders). The major source analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. Table 19 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions estimated for existing area sources complying with GACT. The area source analysis is documented in the memorandum, Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. Both memoranda are available in the docket. We do not project any new major or area sources to be constructed in the 5 years following promulgation of the final rules; no emission reductions were calculated for new sources. The memoranda document emission reductions associated with model major and area sources complying with the new source requirements. TABLE 18—EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE FINAL PVC AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION STANDARDS FOR MAJOR SOURCES Pollutant emission reductions (tpy) Emission point Vinyl chloride Total HAP CDD/CDF (TEQ) HCl Major sources MACT floor Process vents a .................................................................................................................. Stripped resins ................................................................................................................... Wastewater ........................................................................................................................ Equipment leaks ................................................................................................................ Storage vessels ................................................................................................................. Other emission sources ..................................................................................................... Heat exchange systems .................................................................................................... 0.102 7.58 0 0 0 0 101 1.93 7.58 0 0 0 0 101 0.017 g/yr 0 ............... 0 ............... 0 .............. 0 ............... 0 ............... 0 .............. 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment leaks ................................................................................................................ Storage vessels ................................................................................................................. Other emission sources-gasholders .................................................................................. 0 0 22.0 85.0 0 22.0 0 .............. 0 ............... 0 .............. 0 0 0 Major Source total ...................................................................................................... 130 217 0.017 g/yr Major sources beyond the floor a Emission 21.4 reductions for process vents are stated as total organic HAP; this value does not include HCl or chlorine reductions. TABLE 19—EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE FINAL PVC AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION STANDARDS FOR AREA SOURCES Vinyl chloride (tpy) Emission point Process vents .......................................................................................................................................... Heat exchange systems .......................................................................................................................... Stripped resins ......................................................................................................................................... Wastewater .............................................................................................................................................. Equipment leaks ...................................................................................................................................... Other emission sources ........................................................................................................................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES We estimated emission reductions of the final rule for each emission point. For all emission points, we first calculated emissions at the current level of control for each facility (referred to as the baseline level of control), and at the MACT level of control selected for major sources and the GACT level of control selected for area sources. We calculated emission reductions as the difference between the final level and baseline. Major Sources For process vents at major sources, we calculated baseline emissions from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the control devices, and HAP emissions using the final emission VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 limits, in combination with the vent stream flow rates measured during emission tests. For stripped resins at major sources, we calculated emissions assuming that all the HAP remaining in the resin would eventually be emitted from processes downstream of the resin stripper. This assumption results in a calculation of the potential emissions at the baseline stripped resin concentration levels, and final MACT concentration levels. Emissions were calculated from the HAP concentration in the stripped resin, and the resin production rate. For wastewater at major sources, we estimated the emissions from the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 0 15.1 0 0 0 0 Dioxin/furan (g/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total HAP (tpy) 0 15.1 0 0 9.29 0 wastewater streams, the maintenance wastewater streams, and in the controlled wastewater streams, and the wastewater flow rates or generation rates. For equipment leaks at major sources, we estimated emissions for the baseline LDAR program in use at each facility, and the final equipment leaks requirements using model equipment counts, average emission factors for leaking equipment and control efficiencies for LDAR programs developed as part of the technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA (see section V.H of this preamble for additional detail). Model equipment counts were used because actual equipment counts were not E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations collected as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request sent to the PVC industry. The survey requested information only on regulatory LDAR programs currently in place at each facility, and the costs for the facility to conduct the LDAR program. For other emission sources, we estimated baseline emissions from gasholders using information provided by industry during the comment period. We estimated the emission reductions associated with installing floating objects on gasholder water seals to reduce emissions of vinyl chloride from those seals, as a beyond the floor option, based on additional information provided by the PVC industry after the comment period. We calculated emissions from reactor openings from information provided in responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request provided by affected sources. We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey responses provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from heat exchange systems were calculated assuming that, once the LDAR program was in effect, emissions would be eliminated due to the low leak action level that is being finalized. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Area Sources For process vents, we calculated emissions from the concentration of HAP in the vent stream and the vent gas flow rates measured during emission tests. For process vents in the PVC-only subcategory, we calculated baseline emissions for the one area source in the subcategory from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the control device. We did not select an option more stringent than the current emission level; therefore, there were no emission reductions calculated. For process vents in the PVC-combined subcategory, we calculated baseline emissions for the one area source in the subcategory from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the control. Since the existing PVCcombined area source currently meets the GACT standards, we did not VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 calculate a reduction of HAP emissions associated with meeting the GACT emission limits. For stripped resins, emissions were calculated from the HAP concentration in the stripped resin, and the resin production rate. For the one existing area source in the suspension subcategory, we calculated emissions assuming that all the HAP remaining in the resin would eventually be emitted from processes downstream of the resin stripper. This assumption results in a calculation of the potential emissions at the stripped resin concentration levels the affected is currently achieving. Since the existing PVC area source in the suspension resin subcategory currently meets the GACT standard, no emission reductions were calculated. For the one existing area source in the bulk resins subcategory, we estimated emissions downstream of the resin stripper using emission rates submitted by the facility since resin produced by the bulk process does not go through downstream drying processes since the resin is in solid form after the polymerization process. For wastewater at existing area sources, we estimated the emissions from the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled wastewater streams, the maintenance wastewater streams, and in the controlled wastewater streams, and the wastewater flow rates or generation rates. For equipment leaks at existing area sources, we estimated emissions for the LDAR program in use at both area sources and emissions associated with complying with the GACT option. Emissions were calculated using a combination of facility provided and model equipment counts, average emission factors for leaking equipment and control efficiencies for LDAR programs developed as part of the technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA (see section V.H of this preamble for additional detail). Model equipment counts were used for equipment types for which counts were not provided by the affected sources. The CAA section 114 survey requested information only on regulatory LDAR programs currently in place at each facility, and the costs for the facility to PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 conduct the LDAR program; however, one facility provided some, but not all equipment counts for which emissions were estimated. For other emission sources, we calculated emissions from reactor openings from information provided in CAA section 114 survey responses provided by affected sources. The existing PVC area sources currently do not operate gasholders; therefore no emissions from gasholders were calculated for area sources. We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey responses provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from heat exchange systems were calculated assuming that, once the LDAR program was in effect, emissions would be eliminated due to the low leak action level that is being finalized. B. What are the cost impacts? We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources to meet the sampling and testing requirements, add the necessary controls, monitoring devices, recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the final rules. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total initial investment of $17.6 million for major sources and $486,000 for area sources. We anticipate an associated total annual cost of $3.94 million for major sources and $167,000 for area sources (using a discount rate of 7 percent), in 2010 dollars, as shown in Table 20 and Table 21 of this preamble. We do not anticipate the construction of any new PVCPU in the next 5 years and, therefore, there are no new source cost impacts. Estimated impacts of the new area source requirements for a model facility are presented in the memoranda, Costs and Emission Reductions of the MACT Floor Level of Control for the Promulgated Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category and Cost and Emission Reductions of the Area Source Level of Control for the Promulgated Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which are in the PVC docket. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22899 TABLE 20—COST IMPACTS OF THE FINAL PVC AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MAJOR SOURCES Total initial cost (million 2010$) a Emission point Total annual cost (million 2010$/ yr) b Major sources MACT floor Process vents .......................................................................................................................................................... Stripped resins ......................................................................................................................................................... Wastewater .............................................................................................................................................................. Equipment leaks ...................................................................................................................................................... Storage vessels ....................................................................................................................................................... Other emission sources ........................................................................................................................................... Heat exchange systems .......................................................................................................................................... 3.38 10.1 0.075 2.87 0.0165 0.0165 0.0466 1.72 1.13 0.165 0.469 0.0233 0.0233 0.152 Equipment leaks ...................................................................................................................................................... Storage vessels ....................................................................................................................................................... Other emission sources—gasholders ...................................................................................................................... 1.02 0 0.0750 0.238 0 0.0222 Major source total ............................................................................................................................................. 17.6 3.94 Major sources beyond the floor a Total initial costs for facilities include the capital cost of control equipment, testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. b Total annual costs include: Annualized capital costs, annual cost to operate control equipment, testing and monitoring costs, recordkeeping and reporting costs, and repair costs. TABLE 21—COST IMPACTS OF THE FINAL PVC AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING PVC AREA SOURCES Total initial cost (million$) Emission point Total annual cost (million$) Cost effectiveness ($/ton) Process vents .............................................................................................................................. Heat exchange systems .............................................................................................................. Resins .......................................................................................................................................... Wastewater .................................................................................................................................. Equipment leaksd ........................................................................................................................ Other emission sources ............................................................................................................... Storage vessels ........................................................................................................................... 0.0963a 0.00743 0.00864 0.00743 0.360 0.00220 0.00220 0.0218b 0.0255 0.0212 0.00198 0.0725 0.00311 0.00311 ( c) 1,139 ( c) (c) 7,807 ( c) (c) Area source total .................................................................................................................. 0.484 0.167 ( c) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES a Total initial cost for process vents includes initial recordkeeping and reporting costs (which include year 1 annual costs) and initial process vent testing. b Total annual costs for process vents include process vent testing and annual recordkeeping and reporting (starting in year 2). Process vent testing is required every 5 years following the initial test; therefore, annual testing costs have been divided by 5 to distribute costs evenly across the 5-year period. c Standard does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness is not applicable. d Total initial costs for equipment leaks include capital costs associated with complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, the cost of an electronic PRD monitoring system and the initial recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Annual costs include operation of the PRD monitoring system, complying with subpart UU and annual recordkeeping and reporting costs. Emissions and reductions of VOC, volatile hazardous air pollutants (VHAP) and organic HAP, categorized as total HAP. Emissions, reductions and associated costs referenced from memorandum—Cindy Hancy, RTI, to Jodi Howard, EPA/OAQPS, dated November 10, 2011, subject: Technology Review for Equipment Leaks (draft format), which is available in the docket. Baseline emissions, reductions and costs are adjusted based on equipment counts provided by CertainTeed. Major Sources For major sources, we calculated costs to meet the final level of control for each emission point. For process vents, we estimated costs to meet the final level of control for PVCPU that do not currently meet the final emission limit, based on reported data. For such PVCPU that currently use thermal oxidizers in combination with acid-gas scrubbers, we estimate the cost of compliance through the use of enhanced vinyl chloride recovery using a refrigerated condenser to reduce the quantity of vinyl chloride combusted to meet the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF and THC. For PVCPU that currently use an absorber for vinyl chloride recovery, cost calculations are based on routing the vent gas from the absorber to a refrigerated condenser for enhanced organic HAP recovery. Costs calculations also include capital and annual costs for testing and monitoring of vinyl chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/ CDF. For PVCPU not currently meeting the final stripped resin limits, costs to meet the final level of control are based on industry estimates for a new resin PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 stripper resulting in greater removal of vinyl chloride and total HAP from the resin. Testing and monitoring costs are also included in the costs to meet the final level of control. All PVCPU are expected to meet the final wastewater stripper outlet concentration limit. Therefore, initial and annual costs consist of additional testing and monitoring required to demonstrate compliance with the final emission standards. For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by the EPA were applied to each PVCPU that did not E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES already meet the final level of control (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU). The cost estimates include additional capital and annual cost associated with facilities switching from compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V to subpart UU. We estimated additional capital and annual costs for an electronic PRD indicator, based on data collected for other EPA projects. For other emission sources, we calculated costs for complying with the final, beyond-the-floor, level of control for gasholders. Capital cost estimates were based on data provided by industry at the request of the EPA following the comment period. Annual cost estimates were based on standard factors for costs such as amortization, maintenance, taxes and administration. We calculated costs for complying with the final level for heat exchange systems, based on information collected for other EPA projects. The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. Area Sources For existing area sources, we calculated costs to meet the final level of control for each emission point. For each emission point, we estimated costs of the major source testing, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. For process vents in the PVC-only and PVC-combined subcategories, we did not select an option more stringent than the current emission level; therefore, there were no additional costs calculated. For the one existing area source in the suspension subcategory and the one existing area source in the bulk resins subcategory, we did not calculate any additional costs since both facilities meet the promulgated GACT standards. For wastewater at existing area sources, we did not estimate any additional costs since both facilities meet the promulgated GACT standards. For other emission sources, we did not estimate any additional costs since neither of the existing PVC area sources operate a gasholder. For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by the EPA were applied to the existing area source PVCPU. The cost estimates include additional capital and annual cost associated with the facility switching from compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We estimated additional capital and annual costs for a PRD, based on data collected for other EPA projects. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 We calculated costs for complying with the final level of control for heat exchange systems, based on information collected for other EPA projects. The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the PVC docket. C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy impacts? Major Sources We anticipate major affected sources will need to apply additional controls to meet the final emission limits. The energy impacts associated with meeting the final emission limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution control devices. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 5,300 megawatt-hours per year would be required for the additional and improved control devices. We anticipate secondary air impacts from major sources adding controls to meet the standards. The combustion of fuel needed to generate additional electricity would yield slight increases in nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Since NOX and SO2 emissions and electric generating units are covered by capped emissions trading programs, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for these pollutants for this rule from additional electricity demand. The analyses are documented in the memorandum, Revised Secondary Impacts for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, available in the docket. Area Sources We do not anticipate the area affected sources will need to apply any additional controls with additional electricity or fuel requirements associated with meeting the final emission limits. Therefore, we have not estimated any additional secondary electricity generation of air impacts for area sources. D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards? We performed an economic impact analysis for PVC consumers and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs estimated for this final rule. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule are annualized costs of less than 0.7 percent of their revenues, using the most current year available for revenue data. Demand and supply of PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 PVC product is inelastic according to data included in the Economic Impact Analysis. Based on this information, one can conclude that demand will respond less than 1 to 1 with a change in output price, and that supply is inelastic (i.e., will respond less than 1 to 1) with a change in output price. Hence, based on these results and data, the overall economic impact of this final rule on the affected industries and their consumers should be low. For more information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer NESHAP that is in the docket (EPA– HQ–OAR–2002–0037). VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and emissions impacts associated with this action. This analysis is contained in Cost and Impacts of the PVC and Copolymers Final Standard, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized in section VI.B of this preamble. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until the OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The final rule requires maintenance inspections of the control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The information collection activities in this information collection request (ICR) include the following: Performance tests, wastewater sampling, resin sampling, LDAR monitoring, heat exchanger monitoring, PRD monitoring, operating parameter monitoring, preparation of a site-specific monitoring plan, monitoring and inspection, onetime and periodic reports and the maintenance of records. Some information collection activities included in the NESHAP may occur within the first 3 years, and are presented in this burden estimate, but may not occur until 4 or 5 years following promulgation of the final rule for some affected sources. To be conservative in our estimate, the burden for these items is included in this ICR. An initial notification is required to notify the Administrator of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify storage vessels, process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks, wastewater, heat exchange systems and other emission sources subject to this subpart. A notification of performance test must be submitted, and a sitespecific test plan written for the performance test, along with a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator must submit a notification of compliance status that documents the performance test and the values for the operating parameters. A periodic report submitted every 6 months documents the values for the operating parameters and deviations; a notification of inspection of vessels and related inspection records; leaking and monitoring information for equipment leaks; and leaking and monitoring data for heat exchangers, if greater than leak definition. Owners or operators of PVC facilities are required to keep records of certain parameters and information for a period of 5 years. The annual testing, annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection for major sources (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $1.8 million. This includes 3,200 labor hours VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 per year at a total labor cost of $0.3 million per year, and total non-labor capital costs of $2.8 million per year. The annual testing, annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection for area sources (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $323,000. This includes 425 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $41,000 per year, and total non-labor capital costs of $129,000 per year. These estimates include initial and annual performance tests, conducting and documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications and recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in section VI.B of this preamble. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) for major sources is estimated to be 809 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $37,281 per year. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) for area sources is estimated to be 160 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $7,324 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts DDDDDD and HHHHHHH. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or careless operation) and where the source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA considered whether there might be any burden associated with the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. While recognizing that any such PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22901 burdens are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. The PVC industry is currently required to comply with the part 61 NESHAP requirement for releases from pressure relief valves and reactor manual vent valves, which does not allow a discharge into the atmosphere from these valves, except during an emergency. An emergency discharge means a ‘‘discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the discharge.’’ The owners or operators must, within 10 days of any release from a pressure relief valve or a reactor manual vent valve, submit a report to the Administrator. The report must include the ‘‘nature and cause of discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss, the action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent future discharges.’’ The costs for these reports are already accounted for in the ICR burden estimate. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there would be no additional costs for sources that choose to take advantage of the affirmative defense for malfunctions since it is already required for compliance with the rule. However, there may be other malfunctions that are not currently regulated under the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt a source to take advantage of an affirmative defense. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source (for those not already regulated under the part 61 NESHAP), the EPA is including in the ICR the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as defined by the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The industry in which the affected entities are in is NAICS 325211 (Polyvinyl chemical resins manufacturing). The Small Business Administration small business size definition for this industry is 750 employees or less for parent entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. To the EPA’s knowledge, there are no small entities subject to the final rule. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The total annualized cost of this rule is estimated to be no more than $4.1 million (2010$) in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA, because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule impacts only PVC production facilities and, thus, does not impact small governments uniquely or significantly. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism The action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified major and area sources, and not on state or local governments. There are no PVC production facilities owned or operated by state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources, and not tribal governments. There are no PVC production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5– 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based solely on technology performance. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements in this PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 final action would cause most PVCPU to modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting in approximately 92,000 megawatthours per year of additional electricity being used. Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from this final action, the EPA does not expect any significant price increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected at all by this final action since the action would not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse energy effects associated with this final action, they would be minimal. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 107, RCRA SW–846, PS–8, PS–9 and the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method. During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that were similar to the EPA’s reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS. The search identified 17 other VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 17 candidate VCS (ASTM D3154–00 (2006), ASTM D3464–96 (2007), ASTM D3796–90 (2004), ISO 10780:1994, ASME B133.9–1994 (2001), ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835–95 (2007), ASTM D6522– 00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1999), NIOSH Method 2010, Amines, Aliphatic, ASTM D6060–96 (2001), EN 1948–3 (1996), EN 1911–1.2.3 (1998), ASTM D6735–01, ASTM D4855–97 (2002)) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. An analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage of minorities, percentages of the population below the poverty level, and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, in close proximity to the sources, are similar to VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 the national averages, with percentage differences of 3, 1.8 and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-mile radius of concern. These differences in the absolute number of percentage points from the national average indicate a 9.4percent, 14.4-percent and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority populations, populations below the poverty level and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, respectively. In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the EPA used census data at the block group level to identify demographics of the populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these sources. In this approach, the EPA reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission reductions from this rule. The review identified those census block groups with centroids within a circular distance of a 0.5, 3 and 5 miles of affected sources, and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources.5 6 7 8 There was only one census block group with its centroid within 0.5 miles of any source affected by the final rule. The EPA’s demographic analysis has shown that these areas, in aggregate, have similar proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics and ‘‘Other and Multi-racial’’ populations to the national average. The analysis also showed that these areas, in aggregate, had similar proportions of families with incomes below the poverty level as the national average, and similar populations of children 17 years of age and younger.9 5 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995. 6 Mohai P. Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 7 Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281– 297. 8 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007. 9 The results of the demographic analysis are presented in Review of Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, September 2010, a copy of which is available in the docket. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22903 The EPA developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to this final rule, are aware of its content, and had an opportunity to comment during the comment period. The EPA also ensured that interested communities had an opportunity to comment during the comment period. During the comment period, the EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental justice newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs and the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web site (https:// yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities, as appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) for environmental justice community groups, and conducting conference calls with interested communities. In addition, state and federal permitting requirements will provide state and local governments, and members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources affected by the final rule. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective April 17, 2012. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Dated: February 13, 2012. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Adding new paragraph (b)(45). b. Revising paragraphs (b)(8), (b)(28), and (b)(54). ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(3). ■ d. Revising paragraph (i)(1). ■ e. Revising paragraph (n)(1). ■ f. Adding paragraphs (p)(8) through (p)(11) to read as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (b) * * * (8) ASTM D2879–83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, approved 1983, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.2406, and 63.12005. * * * * * (28) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectometry, approved 2004, IBR approved for §§ 60.485, 60.485a, 63.772, 63.2351, 63.2354, and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. * * * * * (45) ASTM D2879–96, Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, approved 1996, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.2406, and 63.12005. * * * * * (54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved 2003, IBR approved for § 63.1349, table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part, and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Specifications (MPMS) Chapter 19.2 (API MPMS 19.2), Evaporative Loss From Floating-Roof Tanks (formerly API Publications 2517 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 and 2519), First Edition, April 1997, IBR approved for §§ 63.1251 and 63.12005. * * * * * (i) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR approved for §§ 63.309, 63.865, 63.3166, 63.3360, 63.3545, 63.3555, 63.4166, 63.4362, 63.4766, 63.4965, 63.5160, 63.9307, 63.9323, 63.11148, 63.11155, 63.11162, 63.11163, 63.11410, 63.11551, 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part, and table 5 to subpart UUUUU of this part. * * * * * (n) * * * (1) ‘‘Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources’’ (Modified El Paso Method), Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, January 31, 2003, IBR approved for §§ 63.654 and 63.11920. * * * * * (p) * * * (8) Method 8015C (SW–846–8015C), Nonhalogenated Organics by Gas Chromatography, Revision 3, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §§ 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. (9) Method 8260B (SW–846–8260B), Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2, December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §§ 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. (10) Method 8270D (SW–846–8270D), Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §§ 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. (11) Method 8315A (SW–846–8315A), Determination of Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 1, December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 for §§ 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part. * * * * * Subpart DDDDDD—[Amended] 3. Section 63.11140 is revised to read as follows: ■ § 63.11140 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) On or before April 17, 2012, you are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a plant specified in § 61.61(c) of this chapter that produces polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or copolymers and is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. After April 17, 2012, you are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own or operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and copolymers process units (PVCPU), as defined in § 63.12005, that are located at, or are part of, an area source of HAP. (b) On or before April 17, 2012, this subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities in vinyl chloride service necessary to produce PVC and copolymers. An affected source does not include portions of your PVC and copolymers production operations that meet the criteria in § 61.60(b) or (c) of this chapter. After April 17, 2012, this subpart applies to each polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source. The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source is the facility-wide collection of PVCPU, storage vessels, heat exchange systems, surge control vessels, and wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers. (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before October 6, 2006. (i) You must meet the applicable requirements of §§ 63.11142(a), 63.11143(a) and (b), 63.11144(a) and 63.11145 for existing affected sources. (ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in § 63.11141(a). (iii) You must meet the applicable requirements of §§ 63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b) and 63.11145 for existing affected sources by the compliance date specified in § 63.11141(c), after which time you are no longer subject to the requirements listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source between October 6, 2006, and May 20, 2011. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (i) You must meet the applicable requirements of §§ 63.11142(a), 63.11143(a) and (b), 63.11144(a) and 63.11145 for new affected sources. (ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in § 63.11141(b). (3) If you are a new affected source as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section that commenced construction or reconstruction between October 6, 2006, and May 20, 2011, then after April 17, 2012, you are considered an existing affected source. (i) You must meet the applicable requirements of §§ 63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b) and 63.11145 for existing affected sources. (ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in § 63.11141(d), after which time you are no longer subject to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (4) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after May 20, 2011. (i) You must meet the applicable requirements of §§ 63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b), and 63.11145 for new affected sources. (ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in § 63.11141(e). (iii) If components of an existing affected source are replaced such that the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then the existing affected source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for a new affected source upon initial startup of the reconstructed source or by April 17, 2012, whichever is later. (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act. After April 17, 2012, the requirements of this subpart also do not apply to chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in § 63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw materials used in the production of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers. (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under § 70.3(a) or § 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. (e) After the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is required to comply with the provisions of this subpart and no longer has to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. (f) After the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also subject to the provisions of other 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 63 subparts is required to comply with this subpart and any other applicable 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 subparts. ■ 4. Section 63.11141 is revised to read as follows: § 63.11141 dates? What are my compliance (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source as specified in § 63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in § 63.11140(b)(1)(i) by January 23, 2007. (b) If you own or operate a new affected source as specified in § 63.11140(b)(2), then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart as specified in § 63.11140(b)(2)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) If you start up a new affected source on or before January 23, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than January 23, 2007. (2) If you start up a new affected source after January 23, 2007, but before or on May 20, 2011, then you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. (c) If you own or operate an existing affected source as specified in § 63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in § 63.11140(b)(1)(iii) by April 17, 2015. (d) If you own or operate an affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction between October 6, 2006, and May 20, 2011, then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart specified in § 63.11140(b)(3) by April 17, 2015. (e) If you own or operate a new affected source as specified in § 63.11140(b)(4), then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in § 63.11140(b)(4)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If you start up your affected source between May 20, 2011, and April 17, 2012, then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than April 17, 2012. PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22905 (2) If you start up your affected source after April 17, 2012, then you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. ■ 5. Section 63.11142 is revised to read as follows: § 63.11142 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new and existing sources? (a) You must meet all the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, except for §§ 61.62 and 61.63. (b) You must comply with each emission limit and standard specified in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your existing affected source, and you must comply with each emission limit and standard specified in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to your new affected source. (c) The emission limits, operating limits and work practice standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. (d) You must demonstrate initial compliance by the dates specified in § 63.11141. (e) You must conduct subsequent performance testing according to the schedule specified in § 63.11905. (f) You must meet the requirements of the applicable sections of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (19) of this section, except for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where the applicable sections of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (19) of this section reference Table 1 or Table 2 to subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart. (1) You must comply with the requirements of § 63.11880(b). (2) You must comply with the requirements of §§ 63.11890(a) through 63.11890(d) and are subject to § 63.11895. (3) You must comply with the requirements of § 63.11896, except for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where § 63.11896 refers to § 63.11870(d) of subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to § 63.11140(b)(4) of this subpart. (4) You must comply with the requirements of § 63.11900, except for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where § 63.11900 refers to § 63.11875 of subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to § 63.11141 of this subpart. (5) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11910 for initial and continuous compliance for storage vessels. (6) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11915 for equipment leaks. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (7) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11920 for initial and continuous compliance for heat exchange systems. (8) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11925 for initial and continuous compliance for process vents. (9) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11930 for closed vent systems. (10) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11935 for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards for process vents. (11) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11940 for continuous monitoring requirements for control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission limits for process vents. (12) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11945 for performance testing requirements for process vents. (13) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11950 for emissions calculations to be used for an emission profile by process of batch process operations. (14) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11955 for initial and continuous compliance requirements for other emission sources. (15) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11956 for ambient monitoring. (16) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11960 for initial and continuous compliance requirements for stripped resin. (17) You must meet the requirements of § 63.11965 through § 63.11980 for general, initial and continuous compliance, test methods and calculation procedures for wastewater. (18) You must meet the notification and reporting requirements of § 63.11985. (19) You must meet the recordkeeping requirements of §§ 63.11990 and 63.11995. ■ 6. Section 63.11143 is revised to read as follows: § 63.11143 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? (a) All the provisions in part 61, subpart A of this chapter apply to this subpart. (b) The provisions in subpart A of this part, applicable to this subpart are specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) § 63.1(a)(1) through (10). (2) § 63.1(b) except paragraph (b)(3), §§ 63.1(c) and 63.1(e). (c) Section 63.11885 specifies which parts of the General Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you. ■ 7. Section 63.11144 is revised to read as follows: § 63.11144 subpart? What definitions apply to this (a) On and before April 17, 2012, the terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act; §§ 61.02 and 61.61 of this chapter; and § 63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of subpart A of this part, as specified in § 63.11143(b). (b) After April 17, 2012, terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act; § 63.2; and § 63.12005. ■ 8. Section 63.11145 is revised to read as follows: § 63.11145 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state, local or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a state, local or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a state, local or tribal agency within your state. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state, local or tribal agency. (1) Approval of an alternative means of emissions imitation under § 61.12(d) of this chapter. (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under § 61.13(h) of this chapter. A ‘‘major change to test method’’ is defined in § 63.90. (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 61.14(g) of this chapter. A ‘‘major change to monitoring’’ is defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of a major change to reporting under § 61.10. A ‘‘major change to recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in § 63.90. ■ 9. Table 1 and Table 2 are added to subpart DDDDDD to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDDDDD OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES For this type of emission point . . . And for this air pollutant . . . And for an affected source producing this type of PVC resin . . . You must meet this emission limit . . . PVC-only process vents a Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... Total hydrocarbons ............................ Total organic HAP b. .......................... Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... 5.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv). 46 ppmv measured as propane. 140 ppmv. 0.13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). 0.56 ppmv. All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... 2.3 ppmv measured as propane. 29 ppmv. 0.076 ng/dscm. Bulk resin ........................................... 7.1 parts per million by weight (ppmw). 1,500 ppmw. 36 ppmw. 140 ppmw. 790 ppmw. 170 ppmw. 320 ppmw. 36 ppmw. 500 ppmw. 1,900 ppmw. 2.1 ppmw. PVC-combined process vents a. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Stripped resin ................... Total hydrocarbons ............................ Total organic HAP b ........................... Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). Vinyl chloride ..................................... Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP Process Wastewater ........ VerDate Mar<15>2010 Vinyl chloride ..................................... 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Dispersion resin ................................. Suspension resin ............................... Suspension blending resin ................ Copolymer resin ................................ Bulk resin ........................................... Dispersion resin ................................. Suspension resin ............................... Suspension blending resin ................ Copolymer resin ................................ All resin types .................................... Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22907 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDDDDD OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES— Continued For this type of emission point . . . And for this air pollutant . . . And for an affected source producing this type of PVC resin . . . You must meet this emission limit . . . Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP All resin types .................................... 0.018 ppmw. a Emission b Affected limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP limit. TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDDDD OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW AFFECTED SOURCES For this type of emission point . . . And for this air pollutant . . . And for an affected source producing this type of PVC resin . . . You must meet this emission limit . . . PVC-only process vents a Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... Total hydrocarbons ............................ Total organic HAP b ........................... Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... 5.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv). 46 ppmv measured as propane 140 ppmv. 0.13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). 0.56 ppmv. All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... 2.3 ppmv measured as propane 29 ppmv 0.076 ng/dscm. Bulk resin ........................................... 7.1 parts per million by weight (ppmw). 1,500 ppmw. 36 ppmw. 140 ppmw. 790 ppmw. 170 ppmw. 320 ppmw. 36 ppmw. 500 ppmw. 1,900 ppmw. 2.1 ppmw. 0.018 ppmw. PVC-combined process vents a. Stripped resin ................... Total hydrocarbons ............................ Total organic HAP b ........................... Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). Vinyl chloride ..................................... Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP Process Wastewater ........ Vinyl chloride ..................................... Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP Dispersion resin ................................. Suspension resin ............................... Suspension blending resin ................ Copolymer resin ................................ Bulk resin ........................................... Dispersion resin ................................. Suspension resin ............................... Suspension blending resin ................ Copolymer resin ................................ All resin types .................................... All resin types .................................... a Emission b Affected limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP limit. 10. Part 63 is amended by adding and reserving subparts FFFFFFF and GGGGGGG, and adding subpart HHHHHHH, to read as follows: ■ Subparts FFFFFFF and GGGGGGG— [Reserved] Subpart HHHHHHH—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.11860 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart? 63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart? 63.11871 What is the relationship to 40 CFR part 61, subpart F? 63.11872 What is the relationship to other subparts in this part? 63.11875 When must I comply with this subpart? VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards 63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance of emission standard during malfunction? 63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at my affected source? Testing and Compliance Requirements 63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance testing and monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits and demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work practice standards? 63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for storage vessels? PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment leaks? 63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for heat exchange systems? 63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for process vents? 63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems? 63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards for process vents? 63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet for control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission limits for process vents? 63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for process vents? 63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission profile? 63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for other emission sources? 63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient monitoring? E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for stripped resin? 63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for wastewater? 63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for process wastewater? 63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for process wastewater? 63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures for process wastewater? Notifications, Reports and Records 63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when? 63.11990 What records must I keep? 63.11995 In what form and how long must I keep my records? 63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Definitions 63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart? sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Tables to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Affected Sources Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Emission Limits and Standards for New Affected Sources Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Summary of Control Requirements for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Applicability of the General Provisions to Part 63 Table 5 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recording and Compliance Frequencies for Process Vents Table 6 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Toxic Equivalency Factors Table 7 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Calibration and Accuracy Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems Table 8 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Methods and Procedures for Conducting Performance Tests for Process Vents Table 9 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—Procedures for Conducting Sampling of Resin and Process Wastewater Table 10 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63—HAP Subject to the Stripped Resin and Process Wastewater Provisions at New and Existing Sources VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Subpart HHHHHHH—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production What This Subpart Covers § 63.11860 subpart? What is the purpose of this This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants emitted from the production of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers at major sources. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards. § 63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart? You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own or operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process units (PVCPU) as defined in § 63.12005 that are located at, or are part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions as defined in § 63.2. The requirements of this subpart do not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act, or to chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in § 63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw materials used in the production of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers. § 63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart? (a) This subpart applies to each polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source. (b) The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source is the facility wide collection of PVCPU, storage vessels, heat exchange systems, surge control vessels, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers. (c) An existing affected source is one for which construction was commenced on or before May 20, 2011, at a major source. (d) A new affected source is one for which construction is commenced after May 20, 2011, at a major source. (e) If components of an existing affected source are replaced such that the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then the existing affected source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon initial startup of the PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 reconstructed source or by April 17, 2012, whichever is later. § 63.11871 What is the relationship to 40 CFR part 61, subpart F? After the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is required to comply with the provisions of this subpart and no longer has to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. § 63.11872 What is the relationship to other subparts in this part? After the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also subject to the provisions of other subparts in 40 CFR part 60 or this part is required to comply with this subpart and any other applicable subparts in 40 CFR part 60 or this part. § 63.11875 subpart? When must I comply with this (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later than April 17, 2015. On or after April 17, 2015, any such existing affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. (b) If you start up a new affected source on or before April 17, 2012, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart no later than April 17, 2012. On or after April 17, 2012, any such new affected source is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. (c) If you start up a new affected source after April 17, 2012, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Upon startup, any such new affected source is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. (d) You must meet the notification requirements in §§ 63.9 and 63.11985 according to the dates specified in those sections. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limits and standards in this subpart. Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards § 63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards must I meet? (a) You must comply with each emission limit and standard specified in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your existing affected source, and you must comply with each emission limit and standard specified in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to your new affected source. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (b) You must establish an operating limit for each operating parameter required to be monitored in § 63.11925, and you must establish each operating limit as an operating range, minimum operating level or maximum operating level. You must comply with each established operating limit. (c) You must comply with the emission limits and standards specified in §§ 63.11910 through 63.11980 that apply to your affected source. General Compliance Requirements § 63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 4 to this subpart specifies which parts of the General Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) The emission limits, operating limits and work practice standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution control components and monitoring system components, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (c) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all monitoring system components according to §§ 63.8, 63.11935(b) and (c), and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected source is operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to monitoring VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as practicable. (2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all other required data collection periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system. You must report any periods for which the monitoring system failed to collect required data. (d) A deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit or work practice standard. (2) When a performance test indicates that emissions of a pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart are exceeding the emission standard for the pollutant specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (3) When a 3-hour block average from a continuous emissions monitor, as required by § 63.11925(c)(1) through (3), exceeds an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (4) When the average value of a monitored operating parameter, based on the data averaging period for compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart, does not meet the operating limit established in § 63.11880(b). (5) When an affected source discharges directly to the atmosphere from any of the sources specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A pressure relief device, as defined in § 63.12005. (ii) A bypass, as defined in § 63.12005. (iii) A closed vent system in vacuum service. (iv) A closure device on a pressure vessel. (6) Any instance in which the affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any term or condition specified in paragraph (d)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart. (ii) Any term or condition relating to compliance with this subpart that is included in the operating permit for any PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22909 affected source required to obtain such a permit. (7) Any failure to collect required data, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). § 63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance of emission standard during malfunction? In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in § 63.11880, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief. (a) Evidence. To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) The violation: (i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices. (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for. (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation or maintenance. (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs. (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violations on ambient air quality, the environment and human health. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices. (7) All of the actions in response to the violations were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions. (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the violations resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. (b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator in the compliance report required by § 63.11985(b) with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in this section. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at my affected source? If you make a process change to an existing affected source that does not meet the criteria to become a new affected source in § 63.11870(d), you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the testing and reporting requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. If you make a process change to a new affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and the testing and reporting requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Refer to § 63.12005 for the definition of process changes. (a) You must demonstrate that the changed process unit or component of the affected facility is in compliance with the applicable requirements for an existing affected source. You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and establish any applicable operating limits in § 63.11880 within 180 days of the date of start-up of the changed process unit or component of the affected facility. You must demonstrate compliance with any applicable work practice standards upon startup of the changed process unit or component of the affected facility. (b) You must demonstrate that all changed emission points are in compliance with the applicable requirements for a new affected source. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and establish any applicable operating limits in § 63.11880 within 180 days of the date of startup of the changed process unit or component of the affected facility. You must demonstrate compliance with any applicable work practice standards upon startup of the changed process unit or component of the affected facility. (c) For process changes, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with your emission limits and standards, operating limits, and work practice standards according to the procedures and frequency in §§ 63.11910 through 63.11980. (d) For process changes, you must submit the report specified in § 63.11985(b)(4)(iii). Testing and Compliance Requirements § 63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance testing and monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits and demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work practice standards? (a) For existing affected sources, you must establish any applicable operating limits required in § 63.11880 and demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards specified in Tables 1 and 3 to this subpart, as applicable, no later than 180 days after the compliance date specified in § 63.11875 and according to the applicable provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). (b) For existing affected sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance with any applicable work practice standards required in § 63.11880 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.11875 and according to the applicable provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). (c) For new or reconstructed affected sources, you must establish any applicable operating limits required in § 63.11880, and demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards specified in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart, as applicable, no later than 180 days after the effective date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or within 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix). (d) For new and reconstructed affected sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance with any applicable work practice standards required in § 63.11880 no later than the startup date of the affected source or the effective date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later, and according to the applicable provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test and a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, then you must follow the procedures in § 63.7(a)(4). § 63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance? Following the date of your initial demonstration of compliance in § 63.11900, you must conduct subsequent performance testing and monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance with your emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards according to the procedures and frequency in §§ 63.11910 through 63.11980. If you make a process change as specified in § 63.11896, such that a different emission limit or operating parameter limit applies, you must conduct a performance test according to § 63.11896. § 63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for storage vessels? You must comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart for each storage vessel in HAP service. (a) For each fixed roof storage vessel used to comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. If you elect to use a fixed roof storage vessel vented to a closed vent system and control device, the closed vent system and control device must meet the requirements in §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950. (1) Design requirements. (i) The fixed roof must be installed in a manner such that there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces between roof section joints or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall. (ii) Each opening in the fixed roof must be equipped with a closure device designed to operate such that when the closure device is secured in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure device. (2) Operating requirements. (i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the fixed roof must be installed with each closure device secured in the closed position. (ii) Opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof is allowed under conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (A) A closure device may be opened or the roof may be removed when needed to provide access. (B) A conservation vent that vents to the atmosphere is allowed during normal operations to maintain the tank internal operating pressure within tank design specifications. Normal operating conditions that may require these devices to open are during those times when the internal pressure of the storage vessel is outside the internal pressure operating range for the storage vessel as a result of loading or unloading operations or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. (iii) During periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device, operate the storage vessel in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. You must keep the records specified in § 63.11990(b)(6). (A) Do not add material to the storage vessel during periods of planned routine maintenance. (B) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control device to no more than 360 hours per year (hr/yr). (3) Inspection and monitoring requirements. (i) Visually inspect the fixed roof and its closure devices for defects initially and at least once per calendar year except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or between the roof and the wall of the storage vessel; broken, cracked or otherwise damaged seals, or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps or other closure devices. (ii) The inspection requirement specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section does not apply to parts of the fixed roof that you determine are unsafe to inspect because operating personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, provided you comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) You prepare and maintain at the plant site written documentation that identifies all parts of the fixed roof that are unsafe to inspect and explains why such parts are unsafe to inspect. (B) You develop and implement a written plan and schedule to conduct inspections the next time alternative storage capacity becomes available and the storage vessel can be emptied or temporarily removed from service, as necessary, to complete the inspection. The required inspections must be performed as frequently as practicable but do not need to be performed more VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 than once per calendar year. You must maintain a copy of the written plan and schedule at the plant site. (4) Repair requirements. (i) Complete repair of a defect as soon as possible, but no later than 45 days after detection. You must comply with the requirements in this paragraph (a)(4)(i) except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. (ii) Repair of a defect may be delayed beyond 45 days if you determine that repair of the defect requires emptying or temporary removal from service of the storage vessel and no alternative storage capacity is available at the site to accept the removed material. In this case, repair the defect the next time alternative storage capacity becomes available and the storage vessel can be emptied or temporarily removed from service. (b) If you elect to use an internal floating roof storage vessel or external floating roof storage vessel to comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet all requirements of §§ 63.1060 through 63.1067 of subpart WW of this part for internal floating roof storage vessels or external floating roof storage vessels, as applicable. (c) For each pressure vessel used to comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Whenever the pressure vessel is in hazardous air pollutants (HAP) service, you must operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere, e.g., during filling, emptying and purging. The vent stream during filling, emptying and purging must meet the requirements of § 63.11925(a) and (b). (2) Each opening in the pressure vessel must be equipped with a closure device designed to operate such that when the closure device is secured in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps or other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure device. (3) All potential leak interfaces must be monitored annually for leaks using the procedures specified in § 63.11915 and you may adjust for background concentration. You must comply with the recordkeeping provisions specified in § 63.11990(b)(4) and the reporting provisions specified in § 63.11985(a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(10). (4) Pressure vessel closure devices must not discharge to the atmosphere. Any such release (e.g., leak) constitutes a violation of this rule. You must submit to the Administrator as part of your PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22911 compliance report the information specified in § 63.11985(b)(10). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense. § 63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment leaks? For equipment in HAP service (as defined in § 63.12005), you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. (a) Requirement for certain equipment in subpart UU of this part. You must comply with §§ 63.1020 through 63.1025, 63.1027, 63.1029 through 63.1032, and 63.1034 through 63.1039 of subpart UU of this part. (b) Requirements for pumps, compressors, and agitators. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. For each type of equipment specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, you must also meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. (1) Rotating pumps. HAP emissions from seals on all rotating pumps in HAP service are to be minimized by either installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent equipment, or by complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for rotating pumps. If double mechanical seals are used, 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 complying with § 63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or procedures approved by the Administrator. (2) Reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, reciprocating compressors and agitators. HAP emissions from seals on all reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, reciprocating compressors and agitators in HAP service are to be minimized by either installing double mechanical seals or equivalent equipment, or by complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, reciprocating compressors and/or agitators. If double mechanical seals are used, HAP 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 complying with § 63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or procedures approved by the Administrator. (c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. For pressure relief devices in HAP service, as defined in § 63.12005, you must meet the requirements of this E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations paragraph (c) and paragraph (a) of this section, you must comply with the recordkeeping provisions in § 63.11990(c), and you must comply with the reporting provisions in §§ 63.11985(a)(2), (b)(2) and (c)(7). (1) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that discharge directly to the atmosphere without first meeting the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart by routing the discharge to a closed vent system and control device designed and operated in accordance with the requirements in §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950, you must install, maintain, and operate release indicators as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. Any release to the atmosphere without meeting the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, constitutes a violation of this rule. You must submit the report specified in § 63.11985(c)(7), as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. (i) A release indicator must be properly installed on each pressure relief device in such a way that it will indicate when an emission release has occurred. (ii) Each indicator must be equipped with an alert system that will notify an operator immediately and automatically when the pressure relief device is open. The alert must be located such that the signal is detected and recognized easily by an operator. (iii) For any instance that the release indicator indicates that a pressure relief device is open, you must notify operators that a pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of the release, you must submit to the Administrator the report specified in § 63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense. (2) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that discharge directly to a closed vent system and control device designed and operated in accordance with the requirements in §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950, and are required to meet process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. Any release to the atmosphere without meeting the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, constitutes a violation of this rule. You must notify operators that a pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of the release, you must submit to the Administrator the report specified in § 63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895(b) to establish an affirmative defense. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 § 63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for heat exchange systems? (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must perform monitoring to identify leaks of volatile organic compounds from each heat exchange system in HAP service subject to the requirements of this subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Monitoring locations for closedloop recirculation heat exchange systems. For each closed loop recirculating heat exchange system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the location(s) described in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) Each cooling tower return line prior to exposure to air for each heat exchange system in HAP service. (ii) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a heat exchange system is covered by the selected monitoring location(s). (2) Monitoring locations for oncethrough heat exchange systems. For each once-through heat exchange system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the location(s) described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. You may also elect to collect and analyze an additional sample from the location(s) described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. (i) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in HAP service within a heat exchange system is covered by the selected monitoring location(s). (ii) The inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange system prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple heat exchange systems use the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange systems that use that same water feed. (3) Monitoring method. You must determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration or vinyl chloride concentration at each monitoring location using one of the analytical methods specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (in parts per million by volume) as methane from the air stripping testing system using Modified El Paso Method (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) using a flame ionization detector analyzer. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (ii) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (in parts per billion by weight) in the cooling water using Method 624 at 40 CFR part 136, appendix A. The target list of compounds shall be generated based on a pre-survey sample and analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and process knowledge to include all compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water. If Method 624 of part 136, appendix A is not applicable for all compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water for a given heat exchange system, you cannot use this monitoring method for that heat exchange system. (iii) Determine the vinyl chloride concentration (in parts per billion by weight) in the cooling water using Method 107 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix A. (4) Monitoring frequency. You must determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration at each monitoring location at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) For heat exchange systems for which you have not delayed repair of any leaks, monitor at least monthly. You may elect to monitor more frequently than the minimum frequency specified in this paragraph. (ii) If you elect to monitor the inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange system as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, you must monitor the inlet water feed line at the same frequency used to monitor the heat exchange exit line(s), as required in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. (b) A heat exchange system is not subject to the monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if it meets any one of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) All heat exchangers that are in HAP service within the heat exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the process side. (2) The heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers that are in HAP service. (3) The heat exchange system has a maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per minute or less. (c) The leak action levels for both existing and new sources are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, then the leak action level is a total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 3.9 parts per million by volume. (2) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, then the leak action level is a total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water of 50 parts per billion by weight. (3) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, then the leak action level is a vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water of 50 parts per billion by weight. (d) A leak is defined as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable. (1) For once-through heat exchange systems for which you monitor the inlet water feed, as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, a leak is detected if the difference in the measurement value of the sample taken from a location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the measurement value of the corresponding sample taken from the location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section equals or exceeds the leak action level. (2) For all other heat exchange systems, a leak is detected if a measurement value taken according to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section equals or exceeds the leak action level. (e) If a leak is detected, you must repair the leak to reduce the measured concentration to below the applicable action level as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after identifying the leak, except as specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Repair includes re-monitoring as specified in paragraph (a) of this section to verify that the measured concentration is below the applicable action level. Actions that you can take to achieve repair include but are not limited to: (1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as welding the leak or replacing a tube; (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger; (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process fluid; VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or (5) Isolating, bypassing or otherwise removing the leaking heat exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired. (f) If you detect a leak when monitoring a cooling tower return line or heat exchanger exit line under paragraph (a) of this section, you may conduct additional monitoring following the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section to further isolate each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in HAP service within the heat exchange system for which the leak was detected. If you do not detect any leaks when conducting additional monitoring for each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers, the heat exchange system is excluded from repair requirements in paragraph (e) of this section. (g) The delay of repair action level is defined as either a total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 39 parts per million by volume or a total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water of 500 parts per billion by weight or a vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water of 500 parts per billion by weight. While you remain below the repair action level, you may delay the repair of a leaking heat exchanger only if one of the conditions in paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this section is met. If you exceed the repair action level you must repair according to paragraph (e) of this section. You must determine if a delay of repair is necessary as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after first identifying the leak. (1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is initially and remains less than the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods during the delay of repair, you may delay repair until the next scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange system. If, during subsequent monitoring, the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or greater than the delay of repair action level, you must repair the leak within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration was equal to or exceeded the delay of repair action level. PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22913 (2) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not available and the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is initially and remains less than the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods during the delay of repair, you may delay the repair for a maximum of 120 days from the day the leak was first identified. You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts or personnel were not available. If, during subsequent monthly monitoring, the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or greater than the delay of repair action level, you must repair the leak within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the leak was equal to or exceeded the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride delay of repair action level. (h) To delay the repair under paragraph (g) of this section, you must record the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) The reason(s) for delaying repair. (2) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical. (3) The date and concentration of the leak as first identified and the results of all subsequent monitoring events during the delay of repair. (4) An estimate of the potential emissions from the leaking heat exchange system following the procedures in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water, in parts per billion by weight. If the Modified El Paso Method is used, calculate the total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water using equation 7–1 from Modified El Paso Method (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) and the total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration measured in the stripped air. (ii) Calculate the emissions for the leaking heat exchange system by multiplying the volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water, ppbw, by the flow rate of the cooling water at the selected monitoring location and by the expected duration of the delay according to Equation 1 of this section. The flow rate may be based on direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance calculations or other engineering methods. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Where: comply with the operating limits, as specified in § 63.11940(a) through (h), upon promulgation of a performance specification for hydrogen chloride CEMS, new and existing sources have the option to install a hydrogen chloride CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limit for process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. (2) Dioxin/furan CEMS. In lieu of establishing operating limits in § 63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with the operating limits as specified in § 63.11940(a) through (h), upon promulgation of a performance specification for dioxin/furan CEMS, new and existing sources have the option to install a dioxin/furan CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the dioxins/furan emission limit for process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. (3) Total hydrocarbon CEMS. In lieu of establishing operating limits in § 63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with the operating limits as specified in § 63.11940(a) through (h), new and existing affected sources have the option to install a total hydrocarbon CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the total hydrocarbons or total organic HAP emission limit for process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. (d) Initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must conduct an initial inspection as specified in § 63.11930(d) for each closed vent system. (2) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to use as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must prepare the quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan as specified in § 63.11935(b) and sitespecific monitoring plan specified in § 63.11935(c), respectively. (3) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to use as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS and CPMS as specified in §§ 63.11935(b) and (c), respectively, and you must conduct an initial site-specific performance evaluation test according to your sitespecific monitoring plan and EL = Emissions from leaking heat exchange system, pounds of volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride. CVC = Actual measured concentration of total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride measured in the cooling water, parts per billion by weight (ppbw). VCW = Total volumetric flow rate of cooling water, gallons per minute (gpm). rCW = Density of cooling water, pounds per gallon (lb/gal). Ddelay = Expected duration of the repair delay, days. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for process vents? Each process vent must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. (a) Emission limits. Each process vent must meet the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart prior to the vent stream being exposed to the atmosphere. The emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart apply at all times. The emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must not be met through dilution. (b) Closed vent systems and control devices. Each batch process vent, continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent that is in HAP service must be routed through a closed vent system to a control device. All gas streams routed to the closed vent system and control device must be for a process purpose and not for the purpose of diluting the process vent to meet the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. Each control device used to comply with paragraph (a) of this section must meet the requirements of §§ 63.11925 and 63.11940, and all closed vent systems must meet the requirements in § 63.11930. You must not use a flare to comply with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (c) General monitoring requirements. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, for each control device used to comply with the process vent emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must install and operate a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to monitor each operating parameter specified in § 63.11940(a) through (h) to comply with your operating limit(s) required in § 63.11880(b). (1) Hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). In lieu of establishing operating limits in § 63.11880(b) and using CPMS to VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 §§ 63.11935(b)(3) and (c)(4), respectively. (4) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements specified in § 63.11890(c), and you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on 3-hour block averages of CEMS data collected at the minimum frequency specified in § 63.11935(b)(2) and calculated using the data reduction method specified in § 63.11935(e). For a CEMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the 3hour averaging period. (5) For each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 for which you do not use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must conduct an initial performance test according to the requirements in § 63.11945 to demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons or total organic HAP emission limit, vinyl chloride emission limit, hydrogen chloride emission limit, and dioxin/furan emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (ii) During the performance test specified in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section, for each CPMS installed and operated as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must establish an operating limit as the operating parameter range, minimum operating parameter level, or maximum operating parameter level specified in § 63.11935(d). You must meet the requirements specified in § 63.11890(c). Each operating limit must be based on the data averaging period for compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart using data collected at the minimum frequency specified in § 63.11935(c)(2) and calculated using the data reduction method specified in § 63.11935(e). For a CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the averaging period specified in Table 5 to this subpart. (e) Continuous compliance. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for each process vent, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must meet the requirements in § 63.11930 for each closed vent system. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.000</GPH> 22914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart for all periods the process is operating. For a CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the averaging periods specified in Table 5 to this subpart. (C) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit established in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section using these average values calculated in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B) of this section. (5) Each closed vent system and control device used to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must be operated at all times when emissions are vented to, or collected by, these systems or devices. (f) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan toxic equivalency emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must determine dioxin/furan toxic equivalency as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener measured in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section, multiply the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 6 to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency. (g) Emission profile. You must characterize each process vent by developing an emissions profile for each contributing continuous process vent, miscellaneous vent and batch process vent according to paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For batch process vents, the emissions profile must: (i) Describe the characteristics of the batch process vent under worst-case conditions. (ii) Determine emissions per episode and batch process vent emissions according to the procedures specified in § 63.11950. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 (2) For continuous process vents, the flow rate and concentration must be determined according to paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) or according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv): (i)(A) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, as appropriate, shall be used for selection of the sampling site. The sampling site shall be after the last recovery device (if any recovery devices are present) but prior to being combined with any other continuous process vent, batch process vent, or miscellaneous vent, prior to the inlet of any control device that is present and prior to release to the atmosphere. (B) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller than 0.10 meter in diameter. (ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, as appropriate. (iii) (A) Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 shall be used to measure concentration; alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of this part may be used. (B) Where Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 is used, the following procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume concentration: (1) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15-minute intervals during the run. (2) The concentration of either total organic compounds (TOC) (minus methane and ethane) or organic HAP shall be calculated according to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of this section as applicable. (i) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the sum of the concentrations of the individual components and shall be computed for each run using Equation 1 of this section: E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.001</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES (2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS and CPMS required in paragraph (c) of this section as specified in § 63.11935(b) and (c), respectively. (3) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must conduct a periodic sitespecific CEMS performance evaluation test according to your quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan specified in § 63.11935(b)(1). (ii) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on 3-hour block averages of CEMS data collected at the minimum frequency specified in § 63.11935(b)(2), and calculated using the data reduction method specified in § 63.11935(e). You must meet the requirements specified in § 63.11890(c). For a CEMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the 3-hour averaging period. (4) For each emission limit for which you do not use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must conduct a performance test once every 5 years according to the requirements in § 63.11945 for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (ii) For each CPMS operated and maintained as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) You must conduct periodic sitespecific CPMS performance evaluation tests according to your site-specific monitoring plan and § 63.11935(c). (B) For each control device being monitored, you must continuously collect CPMS data consistent with § 63.11890(c) and your site-specific monitoring plan. You must continuously determine the average value of each monitored operating parameter based on the data collection and reduction methods specified in §§ 63.11935(c)(2) and 63.11935(e), and the applicable data averaging period for 22915 22916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry basis, parts per million by volume. Cji = Concentration of sample component j of the sample i, dry basis, parts per million by volume. n = Number of components in the sample. x = Number of samples in the sample run. (ii) The total organic HAP concentration (CHAP) shall be computed according to Equation 1 of this section except that only the organic HAP species shall be summed. The list of organic HAP is provided in Table 2 to subpart F of this part. (C) Where Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 is used, the following procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume TOC concentration: (1) Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, shall be used only if a single organic HAP compound is greater than 50 percent of total organic HAP, by volume, in the vent stream. (2) The vent stream composition may be determined by either process knowledge, test data collected using an appropriate EPA method, or a method or data validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of this part. Examples of information that could constitute process knowledge include calculations based on material balances, process stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the results are still relevant to the current vent stream conditions. (3) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 shall be the single organic HAP compound present at greater than 50 percent of the total organic HAP by volume. (4) The span value for Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 shall be 50 parts per million by volume. (5) Use of Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 is acceptable if the response from the high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale. (iv) Engineering assessment including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of current operating practices at the process unit. (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under representative operating conditions. (C) Maximum flow rate, TOC emission rate, organic HAP emission rate, or net heating value limit specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the process vent. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not limited to: (1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations, (2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment design such as pump or blower capacities, (3) Estimation of TOC or organic HAP concentrations based on saturation conditions, (4) Estimation of maximum expected net heating value based on the vent stream concentration of each organic compound or, alternatively, as if all TOC in the vent stream were the compound with the highest heating value. (E) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering assessment shall be documented. (3) For miscellaneous process vents the emissions profile must be determined according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. (h) Process changes. Except for temporary shutdowns for maintenance activities, if you make a process change such that, as a result of that change, you are subject to a different process vent limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, then you must meet the requirements of § 63.11896. § 63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems? (a) General. To route emissions from process vents subject to the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart to a control device, you must use a closed vent system and meet the requirements of this section and all provisions referenced in this section. However, if you operate and maintain your closed vent system in vacuum service as defined in § 63.12005, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section and are not required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. (b) Collection of emissions. Each closed vent system must be designed and operated to collect the HAP vapors from each continuous process vent, miscellaneous process vent and batch process vent, and to route the collected vapors to a control device. (c) Bypass. For each closed vent system that contains a bypass as defined in § 63.12005 (e.g., diverting a vent stream away from the control device), you must not discharge to the atmosphere through the bypass. Any such release constitutes a violation of this rule. The use of any bypass diverted PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 to the atmosphere during a performance test invalidates the performance test. You must comply with the provisions of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section for each closed vent system that contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. (1) Bypass flow indicator. Install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The flow indicator must be properly installed at the entrance to any bypass. (ii) The flow indicator must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert an operator immediately, and automatically when flow is detected in the bypass. The alarm must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator. (iii) If the alarm is triggered, you must immediately initiate procedures to identify the cause of the alarm. If any closed vent system has discharged to the atmosphere through a vent or bypass, you must initiate procedures to stop the bypass discharge. (iv) For any instances where the flow indicator alarm is triggered, you must submit to the Administrator as part of your compliance report, the information specified in § 63.11985(b)(9) and (10). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense and submit the reports specified in § 63.11985(b)(11). (2) Bypass valve configuration. Secure the bypass valve in the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-andkey type configuration. (i) You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass. A broken seal or closure mechanism or a diverted valve constitutes a violation from the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must maintain the records specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section. (ii) For each seal or closure mechanism, you must comply with either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) For each instance that you change the bypass valve to the diverting position, you must submit to the Administrator as part of your compliance report, the information specified in § 63.11985(b)(9) and (10). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense and submit the reports specified in § 63.11985(b)(11). E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (B) You must install, maintain, and operate a bypass flow indicator as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and you must meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section for each instance that the flow indicator alarm is triggered. (d) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must inspect each closed vent system as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) Hard-piping inspection. If the closed vent system is constructed of hard-piping, you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section. (ii) Conduct annual inspections for visible, audible, or olfactory indications of leaks. (2) Ductwork inspection. If the closed vent system is constructed of ductwork, you must conduct initial and annual inspections according to the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section. (3) Equipment that is unsafe to inspect. You may designate any parts of the closed vent system as unsafe to inspect if you determine that personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with the initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements of this subpart. (e) Closed vent system inspection procedures. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, you must comply with all provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) General. Inspections must be performed during periods when HAP is being collected by or vented through the closed vent system. A leak is indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by volume above background or by visual inspection. (2) Inspection procedures. Each closed vent system subject to this paragraph (e)(2) must be inspected according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. (i) Inspections must be conducted in accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, except as otherwise specified in this section. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section, the detection instrument must meet the performance criteria of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, except the instrument response factor criteria in section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 must be for the representative composition of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 process fluid and not of each individual volatile organic compound in the stream. For process streams that contain nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that are not organic HAP or volatile organic compound, the representative stream response factor must be determined on an inert-free basis. You may determine the response factor at any concentration for which you will monitor for leaks. (iii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet the performance criteria of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the representative response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-free basis as described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. (iv) The detection instrument must be calibrated before use on each day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. (v) Calibration gases must be as specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(v)(A) through (D) of this section. (A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume hydrocarbon in air). (B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 10,000 parts per million by volume. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of one or more of the compounds to be measured in air. (C) If the detection instrument’s design allows for multiple calibration scales, then the lower scale must be calibrated with a calibration gas that is no higher than 2,500 parts per million by volume. (D) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the end of each monitoring day. Check the instrument using the same calibration gas(es) that were used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, section 10.1, except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. Record the instrument reading for each scale used as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Divide these readings by the initial calibration values for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage. If any calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then all equipment monitored since the last PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22917 calibration with instrument readings below the appropriate leak definition and above the leak definition multiplied by the value specified in paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D)(1) of this section must be remonitored. If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at your discretion, all equipment since the last calibration with instrument readings above the appropriate leak definition and below the leak definition multiplied by the value specified in paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D)(2) of this section may be remonitored. (1) 100 minus the percent of negative drift, divided by 100. (2) 100 plus the percent of positive drift, divided by 100. (vi) You may elect to adjust or not adjust instrument readings for background. If you elect not to adjust readings for background, all such instrument readings must be compared directly to 500 parts per million by volume to determine whether there is a leak. If you elect to adjust instrument readings for background, you must measure background concentration using the procedures in this section. You must subtract the background reading from the maximum concentration indicated by the instrument. (vii) If you elect to adjust for background, the arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration indicated by the instrument and the background level must be compared with 500 parts per million by volume for determining whether there is a leak. (3) Instrument probe. The instrument probe must be traversed around all potential leak interfaces as described in Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. (4) Unsafe-to-inspect written plan requirements. For equipment designated as unsafe to inspect according to the provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must maintain and follow a written plan that requires inspecting the equipment as frequently as practical during safe-to-inspect times, but not more frequently than the annual inspection schedule otherwise applicable. You must still repair unsafeto-inspect equipment according to the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section if a leak is detected. (f) Closed vent system leak repair provisions. The provisions of this paragraph (f) apply to closed vent systems collecting HAP from an affected source. (1) Leak repair general for hardpiping. If there are visible, audible, or olfactory indications of leaks at the time E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations of the annual visual inspections required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, you must follow the procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) You must eliminate the leak. (ii) You must monitor the equipment according to the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section and comply with the leak repair provisions in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. (2) Leak repair schedule. Leaks must be repaired as soon as practical, except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. (i) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 days after the leak is detected. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, repairs must be completed no later than 15 days after the leak is detected or at the beginning of the next introduction of vapors to the system, whichever is later. (3) Delay of repair. Delay of repair of a closed vent system for which leaks have been detected is allowed if repair within 15 days after a leak is detected is technically infeasible or unsafe without a closed vent system shutdown or if you determine that emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of such equipment must be completed as soon as practical, but not later than the end of the next closed vent system shutdown. (g) Closed vent system records. For closed vent systems, you must record the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section, as applicable. (1) Bypass records. For each closed vent system that contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream away from the control device and to the atmosphere, or cause air intrusion into the control device, you must keep a record of the information specified in either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable. (i) You must maintain records of any alarms triggered because flow was detected in the bypass, including the date and time the alarm was triggered, the duration of the flow in the bypass, as well as records of the times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device or the flow indicator is not operating. (ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such cases, you must record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms has been done, and must record the occurrence of all periods when the seal VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 mechanism is broken, the bypass valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been broken. (2) Inspection records. For each instrumental or visual inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section for closed vent systems collecting HAP from an affected source during which no leaks are detected, you must record that the inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a statement that no leaks were detected. (3) Leak records. When a leak is detected from a closed vent system collecting HAP from an affected source, the information specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section must be recorded and kept for 5 years. (i) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the operator name, initials, or identification number. (ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the first attempt to repair the leak. (iii) The date of successful repair of the leak. (iv) The maximum instrument reading measured by the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section after the leak is successfully repaired. (v) Repair delayed and the reason for the delay if a leak is not repaired within 15 days after discovery of the leak. You may develop a written procedure that identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. In such cases, reasons for delay of repair may be documented by citing the relevant sections of the written procedure. (vi) Copies of the compliance reports as specified in § 63.11985(b)(9), if records are not maintained on a computerized database capable of generating summary reports from the records. (4) Instrument calibration records. You must maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section for monitoring instrument calibrations conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, and paragraph (e) of this section. (i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing the calibration. (ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification date, and certified concentration. (iii) Instrument scale(s) used. (iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the meter readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the calibration gas value in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D) of this section (i.e., instrument reading for calibration at end of the monitoring day and the calculated percent difference from the initial calibration value). (vi) If you make your own calibration gas, a description of the procedure used. (5) Unsafe-to-inspect records. If you designate equipment as unsafe-toinspect as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must keep the records specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must maintain the identity of unsafe-to-inspect equipment as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (ii) You must keep a written plan for inspecting unsafe-to-inspect equipment as required by paragraph (e)(4) of this section and record all activities performed according to the written plan. (h) Closed vent systems in vacuum service. If you operate and maintain a closed vent system in vacuum service as defined in § 63.12005, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section, and you are not required to comply with any other provisions of this section. Any incidence where a closed vent system designed to be in vacuum service is operating and not in vacuum service constitutes a violation of this rule, unless the closed vent system is meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum service. Any such incidence during a performance test invalidates the performance test. (1) In vacuum service alarm. You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator immediately and automatically when the pressure is such that the closed vent system no longer meets the definition of in vacuum service as defined in § 63.12005. The alarm must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator. (2) In vacuum service alarm procedures. If the alarm is triggered for a closed vent system operating in vacuum service as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, you must immediately initiate procedures to identify the cause of the alarm. If the closed vent system is not in vacuum service, you must initiate procedures to get the closed vent system back in vacuum service as defined in § 63.12005, or you must immediately comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum service. (3) In vacuum service alarm records and reports. For any incidences where a closed vent system designed to be in vacuum service is not in vacuum service, you must submit to the Administrator as part of your compliance report, the information specified in § 63.11985(b)(10). This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in § 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense and submit the reports specified in § 63.11985(b)(11). sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards for process vents? (a) General requirements for CEMS and CPMS. You must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for each CEMS specified in § 63.11925(c) used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must meet the CPMS requirements in paragraph (c) of this section and establish your operating limits in paragraph (d) of this section for each operating parameter specified in Table 5 to this subpart for each process vent control device specified in § 63.11925(b) that is used to comply with the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, except that flow indicators specified in § 63.11940(a) are not subject to the requirements of this section. (b) CEMS. You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section and continuously monitor emissions. (1) You must prepare your quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan, as specified in § 63.8(d) and (e). You must submit your performance evaluation test plan to the Administrator for approval, as specified in § 63.8(e)(3). (2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 minutes. (3) You must conduct initial and periodic site-specific performance evaluations and any required tests of each CEMS according to your quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan prepared as specified in § 63.8(d) and (e). (4) If supplemental gases are added to the control device, you must correct the measured concentrations in accordance with § 63.11945(d)(3). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (5) You must operate and maintain the CEMS in continuous operation according to the quality control program and performance evaluation test plan. CEMS must record data at least once every 15 minutes. (6) CEMS must meet the minimum accuracy and calibration frequency requirements specified in the performance specifications specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable. (i) A hydrogen chloride or dioxin/ furan CEMS must meet the requirements of the promulgated performance specification for the CEMS. (ii) A total hydrocarbon CEMS must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, performance specification 8A. (7) Before commencing or ceasing use of a CEMS system, you must notify the Administrator as specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. (ii) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance test within 60 days of ceasing operation of the system. (c) CPMS. You must install, maintain, and operate each CPMS as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section and continuously monitor operating parameters. (1) As part of your quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan prepared as specified in § 63.8(d) and (e), you must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the monitoring system design, data collection, and the quality assurance and quality control elements specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and § 63.8(d). You are not required to submit the plan for approval unless requested by the Administrator. You may request approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control procedure alternatives to those specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan. (i) The performance criteria and design specifications for the monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector signal analyzer, and data acquisition and calculations. (ii) Sampling interface (e.g., thermocouple) location such that the monitoring system will provide representative measurements. PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22919 (iii) Equipment performance checks, calibrations, or other audit procedures. (iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with provisions in § 63.8(c)(1) and (3). (v) Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping procedures in accordance with provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i). (2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 minutes. (3) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the procedures and requirements in your site-specific monitoring plan. (4) You must conduct an initial and periodic site-specific performance evaluation tests of each CPMS according to your site-specific monitoring plan. (5) All CPMS must meet the specific parameter (e.g., minimum accuracy and calibration frequency) requirements specified in § 63.11940 and Table 7 to this subpart. (6) Monitoring equipment for temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate, mass flow rate and conductivity must be capable of measuring the appropriate parameter over a range that extends at least 20 percent beyond the normal expected operating range of values for that parameter. The data recording system associated with affected CPMS must have a resolution that is equal to or better than one-half of the required system accuracy. (d) Establish operating limit. For each operating parameter that must be monitored in § 63.11925(c) for process vent control devices, you must establish an operating limit as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. You must establish each operating limit as an operating parameter range, minimum operating parameter level, or maximum operating parameter level as specified in Table 7 to this subpart. Where this subpart does not specify which format to use for your operating limit (e.g., operating range or minimum operating level), you must determine which format is best to establish proper operation of the control device such that you are meeting the emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (1) For process vent control devices, the operating limit established for each monitored parameter specified in § 63.11940 must be based on the operating parameter values recorded during any performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance as required by § 63.11925(d)(4) and (e)(4) and may be supplemented by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer’s recommendations. You are not required E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations to conduct performance tests over the entire range of allowed operating parameter values. The established operating limit must represent the conditions for which the control device is meeting the emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (2) You must include as part of the notification of compliance status or the operating permit application or amendment, the information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable, for each process vent control device requiring operating limits. (i) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies and operating scenarios. (ii) The established operating limit of the monitored parameter(s). (iii) The rationale for the established operating limit, including any data and calculations used to develop the operating limit and a description of why the operating limit indicates proper operation of the control device. (iv) The rationale used to determine which format to use for your operating limit (e.g., operating range, minimum operating level or maximum operating level), where this subpart does not specify which format to use. (3) For batch processes, you may establish operating limits for individual batch emission episodes, including each distinct episode of process vent emissions or each individual type of batch process that generates wastewater, if applicable. You must provide rationale in a batch precompliance report as specified in § 63.11985(c)(2) instead of the notification of compliance status for the established operating limit. You must include any data and calculations used to develop the operating limits and a description of why each operating limit indicates proper operation of the control device during the specific batch emission episode. (4) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for different batch emission episodes within a batch process as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must maintain daily records indicating each point at which you change from one operating limit to another, even if the monitoring duration for an operating limit is less than 15 minutes. You must maintain a daily record according to § 63.11990(e)(4)(i). (e) Reduction of CPMS and CEMS data. You must reduce CEMS and CPMS data to 1-hour averages according to § 63.8(g) to compute the average values for demonstrating compliance specified in §§ 63.11925(e)(3)(ii), 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B), and 63.11960(c)(2) for CEMS and CPMS, as applicable. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 § 63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet for control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission limits for process vents? As required in § 63.11925(c), you must install and operate the applicable CPMS specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section for each control device you use to comply with the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must monitor, record, and calculate CPMS data averages as specified in Table 7 to this subpart. Paragraph (h) of this section provides an option to propose alternative monitoring parameters or procedures. (a) Flow indicator. If flow to a control device could be intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no flow. (b) Thermal oxidizer monitoring. If you are using a thermal oxidizer to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must equip the thermal oxidizer with the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable. (1) If a thermal oxidizer other than a catalytic thermal oxidizer is used, you must install a temperature monitoring device in the fire box or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the fire box in a position before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, where a catalytic thermal oxidizer is used, you must install temperature monitoring devices in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed. You must monitor the temperature differential across the catalyst bed. (3) Instead of complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and if the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of the catalytic thermal oxidizer during normal operating conditions is less than 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit), you may elect to monitor the inlet temperature and conduct catalyst checks as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must conduct annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e., conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer’s or catalyst supplier’s recommended procedures. If problems are found during the catalyst activity test, you must replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations within 15 days or by the next time any process vent stream is PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 collected by the control device, whichever is sooner. (ii) You must conduct annual internal inspections of the catalyst bed to check for fouling, plugging, or mechanical breakdown. You must also inspect the bed for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found during the annual internal inspection of the catalyst, you must replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations within 15 days or by the next time any process vent stream is collected by the control device, whichever is later. If the catalyst bed is replaced and is not of like or better kind and quality as the old catalyst then you must conduct a new performance test according to § 63.11945 to determine destruction efficiency. If a catalyst bed is replaced and the replacement catalyst is of like or better kind and quality as the old catalyst, then a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency is not required. (c) Absorber and acid gas scrubber monitoring. If you are using an absorber or acid gas scrubber to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must install the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas scrubber influent liquid flow. (ii) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas scrubber influent liquid flow and the gas stream flow using one of the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. You must monitor the liquid-togas ratio determined by dividing the flow rate of the absorber or acid gas scrubber influent by the gas flow rate. The units of measure must be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio during the performance test. (A) Determine gas stream flow using the design blower capacity, with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop. (B) Measure the gas stream flow at the absorber or acid gas scrubber inlet. (C) If you have previously determined compliance for a scrubber that requires a determination of the liquid-to-gas ratio, you may use the results of that test provided the test conditions are representative of current operation. (2) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in either paragraph (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (i) Install and operate pressure gauges at the inlet and outlet of the absorber or acid gas scrubber to monitor the pressure drop through the absorber or acid gas scrubber. (ii) If the difference in the inlet gas stream temperature and the inlet liquid stream temperature is greater than 38 degrees Celsius, you may install and operate a temperature monitoring device at the scrubber gas stream exit. (iii) If the difference between the specific gravity of the scrubber effluent scrubbing fluid and specific gravity of the scrubber inlet scrubbing fluid is greater than or equal to 0.02 specific gravity units, you may install and operate a specific gravity monitoring device on the inlet and outlet of the scrubber. (3) If the scrubbing liquid is a reactant (e.g., lime, ammonia hydroxide), you must install and operate one of the devices listed in either paragraph (c)(3)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section. (i) A pH monitoring device to monitor the pH of the scrubber liquid effluent. (ii) A caustic strength monitoring device to monitor the caustic strength of the scrubber liquid effluent. (iii) A conductivity monitoring device to monitor the conductivity of the scrubber liquid effluent. (d) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. If you are using a regenerative adsorber to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must install and operate the applicable monitoring equipment listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, and comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) of this section. If the adsorption system water is wastewater as defined in § 63.12005, then it is subject to the requirements of § 63.11965. (1) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an integrating regeneration stream flow monitoring device having an accuracy of ±10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream mass for each regeneration cycle. For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an integrating regeneration stream flow monitoring device capable of continuously recording the total regeneration stream mass flow for each regeneration cycle. (2) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an adsorber bed temperature monitoring device, capable of continuously recording the adsorber bed temperature after each regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any temperature regulation (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature closer VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle. (3) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, an adsorber bed temperature monitoring device capable of continuously recording the bed temperature during regeneration, except during any temperature regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle. (4) For a vacuum regeneration system, a pressure transmitter installed in the vacuum pump suction line capable of continuously recording the vacuum level for each minute during regeneration. You must establish a minimum target and a length of time at which the vacuum must be below the minimum target during regeneration. (5) A device capable of monitoring the regeneration frequency (i.e., operating time since last regeneration) and duration. (6) You must perform a verification of the adsorber during each day of operation. The verification must be through visual observation or through an automated alarm or shutdown system that monitors and records system operational parameters. The verification must verify that the adsorber is operating with proper valve sequencing and cycle time. (7) You must conduct weekly measurements of the carbon bed outlet volatile organic compounds concentration over the last 5 minutes of an adsorption cycle for each carbon bed. For regeneration cycles longer than 1 week, you must perform the measurement over the last 5 minutes of each adsorption cycle for each carbon bed. The outlet concentration of volatile organic compounds must be measured using a portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, for open-ended lines. Alternatively, outlet concentration of HAP(s) may be measured using chromatographic analysis using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. (e) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring. If you are using a nonregenerative adsorber, or canister type system that is sent off site for regeneration or disposal, to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must install a system of dual adsorber units in series and conduct the monitoring and bed replacement as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Establish the average adsorber bed life by conducting daily monitoring of the outlet volatile organic compound or PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22921 HAP concentration, as specified in this paragraph (e)(1), of the first adsorber bed in series until breakthrough occurs for the first three adsorber bed changeouts. The outlet concentration of volatile organic compounds must be measured using a portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, for open-ended lines. Alternatively, outlet concentration of HAP may be measured using chromatographic analysis using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. Breakthrough of the bed is defined as the time when the level of HAP detected is at the highest concentration allowed to be discharged from the adsorber system. (2) Once the average life of the bed is determined, conduct ongoing monitoring as specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, conduct daily monitoring of the adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compound or HAP concentration, as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. (ii) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent has more than 2 months of life remaining, as determined by the average primary adsorber bed life, established in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and the date the adsorbent was last replaced. (iii) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent has more than 2 weeks of life remaining, as determined by the average primary adsorber bed life, established in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and the date the adsorbent was last replaced. (3) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when breakthrough is detected between the first and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh canister) will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will become the second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(3), ‘‘immediately’’ means within 8 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, and within 24 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers greater than 55 gallons. (4) In lieu of replacing the first adsorber immediately, you may elect to monitor the outlet of the second canister beginning on the day the breakthrough between the first and second canister is identified and each day thereafter. This daily monitoring must continue until the first canister is replaced. If the constituent being monitored is detected at the outlet of the second canister during this period of daily monitoring, both canisters must be replaced within 8 hours of the time of detection of E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations volatile organic compounds or HAP at 90 percent of the allowed level (90 percent of breakthrough definition). (f) Condenser monitoring. If you are using a condenser to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must install and operate a condenser exit gas temperature monitoring device. (g) Other control devices. If you use a control device other than those listed in this subpart to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in § 63.11925(c), you must comply with the requirements as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a description of the planned monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures. The Administrator will approve, deny or modify the proposed monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the plan or through the review of the permit application or by other appropriate means. (2) You must establish operating limits for monitored parameters that are approved by the Administrator. To establish the operating limit, the information required in § 63.11935(d) must be submitted in the notification of compliance status report specified in § 63.11985(a). (h) Alternatives to monitoring requirements. (1) You may request approval to use alternatives to the continuous operating parameter monitoring listed in this section, as specified in §§ 63.11985(c)(4) and 63.8. (2) You may request approval to monitor a different parameter than those established in § 63.11935(d) or to set unique monitoring parameters, as specified in §§ 63.11985(c)(5) and 63.8. Until permission to use an alternative monitoring parameter has been granted by the Administrator, you remain subject to the requirements of this subpart. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for process vents? (a) General. For each control device used to meet the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must conduct the initial and periodic performance tests required in § 63.11925(d) and (e) and as specified in § 63.11896 using the applicable test methods and procedures specified in Table 8 to this subpart and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. (b) Process operating conditions. You must conduct performance tests under VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. In all cases, a sitespecific plan must be submitted to the Administrator for approval prior to testing in accordance with § 63.7(c). The test plan must include the emission profiles described in § 63.11925(g). (1) Continuous process vents. For continuous process vents, you must conduct all performance tests at maximum representative operating conditions for the process. For continuous compliance, you must conduct subsequent performance tests within the range of operating limit(s) that were established for the control device during the initial or subsequent performance tests specified in § 63.11925(d) and (e). If an operating limit is a range, then you must conduct subsequent performance tests within the range of maximum or minimum operating limits for the control device, which result in highest emissions (i.e., lowest emission reduction). (2) Batch process operations. Testing must be conducted at absolute worstcase conditions or hypothetical worstcase conditions as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (3) Combination of both continuous and batch unit operations. You must conduct performance tests when the batch process vents are operating at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case conditions, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, and at maximum representative operating conditions for the process. For continuous compliance, you must operate the control device as close as possible to your operating limit(s) for the control device established during the initial or subsequent performance tests specified in § 63.11925 (d) and (e). If an operating limit is a range, then you must operate the control device as close as possible to the maximum or minimum operating limit for the control device, whichever results in higher emissions (i.e., lower emission reduction), unless the Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions. (c) Batch worst-case conditions. The absolute worst-case conditions for batch process operations must be characterized by the criteria presented in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The hypothetical worst-case conditions for batch process operations must be characterized by the criteria presented in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (1) Absolute worst-case conditions. For batch process operations, absolute worst-case conditions are defined by the criteria presented in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if the maximum load is the most challenging condition for the control device. Otherwise, absolute worst-case conditions are defined by the conditions in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. You must consider all relevant factors, including load and compoundspecific characteristics in defining absolute worst-case conditions. (i) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control device contains the highest HAP mass loading rate, in pounds per hour, capable of being vented to the control device. An emission profile as described in § 63.11925(g) must be used to identify the 1-hour period of maximum HAP loading. (ii) The period of time when the HAP loading or stream composition (including non-HAP) is most challenging for the control device. These conditions include, but are not limited to the following: (A) Periods when the stream contains the highest combined organic load, in pounds per hour, described by the emission profiles in § 63.11925(g). (B) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media. (C) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach limits of adsorptivity for adsorption systems. (2) Hypothetical worst-case conditions. For batch process operations, hypothetical worst-case conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest hourly HAP load of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to the control device based on the emissions profiles described in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) or (iii) of this section. (3) Emission profile. For batch process operations, you must develop an emission profile for the vent to the control device that describes the characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device under worstcase conditions. The emission profile must be developed based on any one of the procedures described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Emission profile by process. The emission profile must consider all batch emission episodes that could contribute to the vent stack for a period of time that is sufficient to include all processes venting to the stack and must consider production scheduling. The profile must describe the HAP load to the device that equals the highest sum of emissions from the episodes that can vent to the control device in any given hour. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22923 Emissions per episode must be calculated using the procedures specified in § 63.11950. Emissions per episode must be divided by the duration of the episode only if the duration of the episode is longer than 1 hour. (ii) Emission profile by equipment. The emission profile must consist of emissions that meet or exceed the highest emissions, in pounds per hour that would be expected under actual processing conditions. The profile must describe equipment configurations used to generate the emission events, volatility of materials processed in the equipment, and the rationale used to identify and characterize the emission events. The emissions may be based on using a compound more volatile than compounds actually used in the process(es), and the emissions may be generated from all equipment in the process(es) or only selected equipment. (iii) Emission profile by capture and control device limitation. The emission profile must consider the capture and control system limitations and the highest emissions, in pounds per hour that can be routed to the control device, based on maximum flow rate and concentrations possible because of limitations on conveyance and control equipment (e.g., fans and lower explosive level alarms). (d) Concentration correction calculation. If a combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions, the concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, and hydrogen chloride must be corrected as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. If a control device other than a combustion device is used to comply with an outlet concentration emission limit for batch process vents, you must correct the actual concentration for supplemental gases as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (1) Determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected to 3-percent oxygen (Cc) using Equation 1 of this section. Where: Cc = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected to 3-percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume. Cm = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride, dry basis, parts per million by volume. %O2d = Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percentage by volume. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (3) Correct the measured concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 2 of this section. Process knowledge and representative operating data may be used to determine the fraction of the total flow due to supplemental gas. Where: E = Mass of HAP emitted. V = Volume of gas displaced from the vessel. R = Ideal gas law constant. T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute. Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP. MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 When developing your emission profiles for batch process vents as required in § 63.11925(g), except as specified in paragraph (i) of this section, you must calculate emissions from episodes caused by vapor displacement, purging a partially filled vessel, heating, depressurization, vacuum operations, PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 gas evolution, air drying, or empty vessel purging, using the applicable procedures in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. (a) Vapor displacement. You must calculate emissions from vapor displacement due to transfer of material using Equation 1 of this section. (b) Gas sweep of a partially filled vessel. You must calculate emissions from purging a partially filled vessel using Equation 2 of this section. The pressure of the vessel vapor space may be set equal to 760 millimeters of E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.004</GPH> § 63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission profile? ER17AP12.003</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of HAP, dry basis, parts per million by volume (ppmv). Cm = Actual concentration of HAP measured at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv. Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams vented to the control device, except supplemental gases. Qs = total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases. ER17AP12.002</GPH> (2) To determine the oxygen concentration, you must use the emission rate correction factor (or excess air), integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, or 22924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at saturated conditions. Pj = Partial pressure of individual condensable compounds (including HAP) at saturated conditions. PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space. MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP. t = Time of purge. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. j = Identifier for a condensable compound. m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission stream. Where: Si = Saturation factor for individual condensable compounds. Pi = Partial pressure of individual condensable compounds at saturated conditions. PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space. A = Surface area of liquid. V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas. Visat = Volumetric flow rate of individual condensable compounds at saturated vapor pressure. Ki = Mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable compounds in the emission stream. Ko = Mass transfer coefficient of reference compound (e.g., 0.83 cm/s for water). Mo = Molecular weight of reference compound (e.g., 18.02 for water). Mi = Molecular weight of individual condensable compounds in the emission stream. n = Number of condensable compounds in the emission stream. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (c) Heating. You must calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel to a temperature lower than the boiling point using the procedures in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If the contents of a vessel are heated to the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.006</GPH> significant figures for subsequent iterations. Note that for multicomponent emission streams, saturation factors must be calculated for all condensable compounds, not just the HAP. ER17AP12.005</GPH> section iteratively beginning with saturation factors (in the right-hand side of the equation) of 1.0 for each condensable compound. Stop iterating when the calculated saturation factors for all compounds are the same to two Where: E = Mass of HAP emitted. V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas at the temperature and pressure of the vessel vapor space. R = Ideal gas law constant. T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES mercury (mmHg). You must multiply the HAP partial pressure in Equation 2 of this section by a HAP-specific saturation factor determined in accordance with Equations 3 through 5 of this section. Solve Equation 3 of this Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22925 boiling point, you must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (1) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are heated is lower than the boiling point of the HAP in the vessel, you must calculate the mass of HAP emitted per episode using Equation 6 of this section. The average gas space molar volume during the heating process is calculated using Equation 7 of this section. The difference in the number of moles of condensable in the vessel headspace between the initial and final temperatures is calculated using Equation 8 of this section. Where: E = Mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated. Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating process. PT = Total pressure in the vessel. Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at initial temperature (T1). Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at final temperature (T2). MWHAP = Average molecular weight of the HAP compounds calculated using Equation 13 of this section. ni,1 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel headspace at initial temperature (T1). ni,2 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel headspace at final temperature (T2). n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. ln = Natural logarithm. Where: Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating process. V = Volume of free space in vessel. PT = Total pressure in the vessel. R = Ideal gas law constant. T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel. T2 = Final temperature of the vessel. Where: V = Volume of free space in vessel. R = Ideal gas law constant. T1 = Initial temperature in the vessel. T2 = Final temperature in the vessel. Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at T1. Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at T2. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) To calculate the emissions from heating to the boiling point use Equations 9, 10 and 11 of this section. (Note that Pa2 = 0 in the calculation of Dh in Equation 10 of this section.) Where: E = Mass of HAP emitted. Dh = The number of moles of noncondensable displaced from the 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.008</GPH> ER17AP12.009</GPH> VerDate Mar<15>2010 vessel, as calculated using Equation 10 of this section. PT = Pressure in the receiver. ER17AP12.007</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER17AP12.010</GPH> (2) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are heated is at the boiling point or higher, you must calculate emissions using the procedure 22926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. j = Identifier for a condensable compound. MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor exiting the dedicated receiver, as calculated using Equation 11 of this section with partial pressures determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission stream. Where: Dh = Number of moles of noncondensable gas displaced from the vessel. V = Volume of free space in the vessel. R = Ideal gas law constant. T1 = Initial temperature of vessel contents, absolute. T2 = Final temperature of vessel contents, absolute. Pan = Partial pressure of noncondensable gas in the vessel headspace at initial (n=1) and final (n=2) temperature. MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor exiting the dedicated receiver. (Pi)Tn = Partial pressure of each HAP in the vessel headspace at initial (T1) and final (T2) temperature of the receiver. MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. the condenser and show it is less than the boiling or bubble point of the HAP in the vessel; or perform a material balance around the vessel and condenser and show that at least 99 percent of the recovered HAP vaporized while boiling is condensed. This demonstration is not required if the process condenser is followed by a condenser acting as a control device or if the control device is monitored using a CEMS. (d) Depressurization. You must calculate emissions from depressurization using Equation 12 of this section. Where: E = Emissions. V = Free volume in vessel being depressurized. R = Ideal gas law constant. T = Temperature of the vessel, absolute. P1 = Initial pressure in the vessel. P2 = Final pressure in the vessel. Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable compounds (including HAP). MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP compounds. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (e) Vacuum systems. You must calculate emissions from vacuum systems using Equation 13 of this section if the air leakage rate is known or can be approximated. The receiving vessel is part of the vacuum system for purposes of this subpart. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.013</GPH> j = Identifier for a condensable compound. ln = Natural logarithm. ER17AP12.012</GPH> (ii) While boiling, the vessel must be operated with a properly operated process condenser. An initial demonstration that a process condenser is properly operated must be conducted during the boiling operation and documented in the notification of compliance status report described in § 63.11985(a). You must either measure the liquid temperature in the receiver or the temperature of the gas stream exiting ER17AP12.011</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP determined at the exit temperature of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable (including HAP) determined at the exit temperature of the Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations by the Administrator, and must be reported in the batch precompliance report. An engineering assessment should include, but is not limited to, the items listed in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of current operating practices at the process unit. (2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under representative operating conditions. (3) Maximum flow rate, HAP emission rate, concentration, or other relevant parameter specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the process vent. (4) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not limited to the following: (i) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations. (i) Engineering assessments. You must conduct an engineering assessment to calculate HAP emissions or emission episodes from each process vent that are not due to vapor displacement, partially filled vessel purging, heating, depressurization, vacuum operations, gas evolution, air drying or empty vessel purging. An engineering assessment may also be used to support a finding that the emissions estimation equations in this section are inappropriate. All data, assumptions and procedures used in the engineering assessment must be documented, are subject to preapproval VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 purging using Equation 15 of this section (Note: The term e-Ft/v can be assumed to be 0): (ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment design such as pump or blower capacities. (iii) Estimation of HAP concentrations based on saturation conditions. § 63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for other emission sources? (a) Before opening any process component (including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins) for any reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride must be reduced to an amount that occupies a volume of no more than 2.0 percent of the component’s or equipment’s containment volume, or 25 gallons, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and pressure. (b) Before opening a polymerization reactor for any reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride is not to exceed 0.04 pounds per ton of PVC product, with the product determined on a dry solids basis. (c) Any gas or vapor HAP removed from a process component in E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.016</GPH> Where: V = Volume of empty vessel. R = Ideal gas law constant. T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute. Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at the beginning of the purge. MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP. F = Flow rate of the purge gas. t = Duration of the purge. n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. i = Identifier for a HAP compound. (h) Empty vessel purging. You must calculate emissions from empty vessel (f) Gas evolution. You must calculate emissions from gas evolution using Equation 13 in paragraph (e) of this section with mass flow rate of gas evolution, Wg, substituted for La. (g) Air drying. You must calculate emissions from air drying using Equation 14 of this section: ER17AP12.015</GPH> PS2 = HAP in material exiting dryer, weight percent. temperature of the receiver or ejector outlet, as appropriate. ER17AP12.014</GPH> temperature or the ejector outlet conditions. La = Total air leak rate in the system, mass/ time. MWnc = Molecular weight of noncondensable gas. t = Time of vacuum operation. MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP in the emission stream, with HAP partial pressures calculated at the Where: E = Mass of HAP emitted. B = Mass of dry solids. PS1 = HAP in material entering dryer, weight percent. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: E = Mass of HAP emitted. PT = Absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector outlet conditions, if there is no receiver. Pi = Partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver temperature or the ejector outlet conditions. Pj = Partial pressure of condensable (including HAP) at the receiver 22927 22928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be vented to a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950. (d) Each gasholder in vinyl chloride service must meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Each gasholder must be vented to a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950. (2) Each gasholder must operate with one or more of the following installed on the water seal to reduce emissions: (i) Floating balls; (ii) Hollow floating disks; (iii) Oil layer; and/or (iv) Floating mats. (3) Each gasholder must have established operating procedures that include provisions for ensuring that the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section are met at all times except during periods of maintenance or repair. The standard operating procedures must be developed and implemented and made available to the Administrator upon request. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient monitoring? You must operate a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the affected source 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 you assume that all hydrocarbons measured are vinyl chloride, analyzes the samples with infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative method. You must operate the vinyl chloride monitoring system according to a program that you develop for your affected source. You must submit a description of the program to the Administrator within 45 days of your compliance date, unless a waiver of compliance is granted by the Administrator, or the program has been approved and the Administrator does not request a review of the program. Approval of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided the Administrator finds: (a) The location and number of points to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable when they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl chloride service and size and physical layout of the affected source. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (b) 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 a 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. (c) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a leak is detected. (d) 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 must be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b) of this section. The calibration must be done with either: (1) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of Method 106 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, and in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 106, or (2) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration gas cylinder standard must 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 Sections 8.1 and 9.2 of Method 106. The requirements in Sections 7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.2 of Method 106 for certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and verification of calibration standards are to be followed. § 63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements for stripped resin? (a) Emission limits. You must meet the applicable vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 emission limits for stripped resin specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (b) Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are expected to be present in each grade of resin produced by your PVCPU. This list must be continuously updated and must be available for inspection by the Administrator. This list must include the identification of each grade of resin produced, each HAP expected to be present in that grade of resin, and the CAS number for each HAP. (1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and continuous compliance as required in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section. (i) You must analyze each resin sample for all Table 10 HAP using the test methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section. (ii) You must also analyze each resin sample for any HAP that are not a Table 10 HAP but are expected to be present in that resin sample based on your facility-specific list of HAP using the appropriate test method specified in paragraph (e) of this section. (2) [Reserved] (c) Demonstration of initial compliance. You must demonstrate initial compliance for each resin stripper or for each group of resin strippers used to process the same resin type. (1) You must conduct an initial performance test for the resin stripper, measuring the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the stripped resin at the outlet of each resin stripper as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Use the test method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section. (ii) Collect samples when the PVCPU is producing the resin grade of which you manufacture the most, based on the total mass per resin grade of a given resin type produced in the 12 months preceding the sampling event. (iii) For continuous processes, during a 24-hour sampling period, for each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab sample at intervals of 8 hours or per grade of PVC produced, whichever is more frequent. Each sample must be taken as the resin flows out of the stripper. (iv) For batch processes, during a 24hour sampling period, for each batch of each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab sample for each batch. Each sample must be taken immediately following E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22929 samples collected as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section and using the calculation procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section to determine the total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration of each sample. (ii) Demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on the 24-hour arithmetic average concentrations calculated in either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) If more than one resin grade was produced during the 24-hour sampling period, use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the 24-hour grade weighted arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for each stripper, or for each group of strippers used to process the same type of resin, using the 24hour average vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and the mass of each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period. Where: AT = 24-hour average concentration of resin type T, parts per million by weight (dry basis). PGi = Production of resin grade Gi, pounds. CGi = 24-hour average concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in resin grade Gi, ppmw. QT = Total production of resin type T over the 24-hour sampling period, pounds. (3) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit for stripped resin in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (e) Test methods and procedures for determining concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (1) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you must use the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) SW–846–8260B (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this subpart. (ii) SW–846–8270D (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of semivolatile organic compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart. (iii) SW–846–8315A (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of aldehyde compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart. (iv) SW–846–8015C (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of alcohol compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart. (2) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B. (3) When using the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, for sample collection, preservation, transport, and analysis, you must minimize loss of HAP and maintain sample integrity. (f) Method for calculating total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration. For each stripped resin sample analyzed using the methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section, calculate the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP analyzed as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section by using Equation 2 to this section. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Where: CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP compounds in the stripped resin sample, in parts per million by weight (ppmw). Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the stripped resin sample analyzed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section excluding vinyl chloride, in ppmw, where a value of zero should be used for any HAP concentration that is below the detection limit. § 63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for wastewater? (a) The concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream containing greater than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, measured immediately as it leaves a piece of process equipment and before being mixed with any other process wastewater stream, must be reduced to the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The applicable limits in E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.018</GPH> (B) If only one resin grade was produced during the 24-hour sampling event, use the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for the one resin grade calculated as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for each stripper or calculate the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for all strippers used to process the one grade of resin. (d) Demonstration of continuous compliance. You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each resin stripper or for each group of resin strippers used to process the same resin type. (1) On a daily basis, you must measure the concentration of vinyl chloride in stripped resin using the test method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section, and the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section. (2) On a monthly basis, you must measure the concentration of total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP in stripped resin using the test method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section, and the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section. ER17AP12.017</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES the completion of the stripping operation. (2) Demonstrate initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Calculate the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for each stripper for each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period, using the vinyl chloride and non vinyl-chloride HAP concentrations measured for the grab sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must be met before the process wastewater stream is mixed with any other process wastewater stream containing vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations less than the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before being discharged from the affected source. (b) Initial determination of process wastewater streams that need to be treated. You must determine which process wastewater streams require treatment as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section and meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. (1) You must collect process wastewater samples as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) For treated process wastewater streams, you must collect process wastewater samples at the outlet of the treatment process and before the process wastewater stream is mixed with any other process wastewater stream containing vinyl chloride or total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations less than the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before being discharged from the affected source. (ii) For untreated process wastewater streams, you must collect process wastewater samples at the location immediately as the stream leaves a piece of process equipment, before being mixed with any other process stream or process wastewater stream, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before being discharged from the affected source. (2) You must measure the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures specified in § 63.11980. (c) Requirements for process wastewater streams that must be treated. Each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be treated to reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP to below the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must route wastewater streams through hard-piping to the treatment process and route the vent stream from the treatment process to a closed vent system and control VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 device meeting the requirements of §§ 63.11925 through 63.11950. You must also meet the initial and continuous compliance requirements specified in § 63.11970(a) and § 63.11975. (d) Requirements for process wastewater streams that do not need to be treated. For each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration less than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet the initial and continuous compliance requirements specified in §§ 63.11970(b) and 63.11975(c). (e) Maintenance wastewater. You must comply with the requirements specified in § 63.105 of subpart F of this part. (f) Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are expected to be present in each process wastewater stream at your PVCPU. This list must be continuously updated and must be available for inspection by the Administrator. This list must include the identification of each HAP expected to be present in each process wastewater stream, and the CAS number for each HAP. (1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and continuous compliance as required in §§ 63.11970 and 63.11975 of this subpart, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must analyze each process wastewater sample for all HAP listed in Table 10 to this subpart using the test methods specified in § 63.11980(a)(2) and (3). (ii) You must also analyze each process wastewater sample for any HAP that are not listed in Table 10 to this subpart but are expected to be present in that sample based on your facilityspecific list of HAP using the appropriate test method specified in § 63.11980(a)(2). (2) [Reserved] § 63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for process wastewater? (a) Demonstration of initial compliance for process wastewater streams that must be treated. For each process wastewater stream that must be treated as specified in § 63.11965(b) and (c), you must conduct an initial performance test for the wastewater treatment process, measuring the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the wastewater stream at the outlet of the wastewater treatment process before the PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 wastewater is exposed to the atmosphere, mixed with any other process stream, and before being discharged from the affected facility, using the test method(s) and procedures specified in § 63.11980(a). (b) Demonstration of initial compliance for process wastewater streams that are not required to be treated. For each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration less than the limits specified in Tables 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must use the measurement specified in § 63.11965(b)(1)(ii) to demonstrate initial compliance. § 63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for process wastewater? (a) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated to reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP as specified in § 63.11965(b) and (c), you must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. For each process wastewater stream for which you initially determine in § 63.11970(b) that treatment is not required to reduce either vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration, you must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated according to § 63.11965(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart by following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Following your demonstration of initial compliance in § 63.11970(a), make monthly measurements of the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations using the procedures and methods specified in § 63.11965(b)(1) and (2). (2) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart on a monthly basis, using the monthly concentration measurement specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) For each wastewater stream for which you initially determine in § 63.11970(b) that treatment is not required to reduce the vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration, you must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Conduct annual performance tests, measuring the vinyl chloride and total E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations using the procedures and methods specified in § 63.11965(b)(1) and (2). (2) If any annual performance test conducted as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section results in a concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the process wastewater stream that is greater than or equal to the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, then you must meet the requirements of § 63.11965(c) and you must demonstrate initial and continuous compliance as specified in § 63.11970 and this section. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures for process wastewater? (a) Performance test methods and procedures. You must determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (1) You must conduct performance tests during worst-case operating conditions for the PVCPU when the process wastewater treatment process is operating as close as possible to maximum operating conditions. If the wastewater treatment process will be operating at several different sets of operating conditions, you must supplement the testing with additional testing, modeling or engineering assessments to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits. (2) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you must conduct sampling and analysis using the methods specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) SW–846–8260B (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this subpart. (ii) SW–846–8270D (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of semivolatile organic compounds. (iii) SW–846–8315A (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of aldehyde compounds. (iv) SW–846–8015C (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) for analysis of alcohol compounds. (3) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B. (4) When using the methods in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, you must meet the requirements in VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Sample collection may consist of grab or composite samples. (ii) Samples must be taken before the process wastewater stream is exposed to the atmosphere. (iii) You must ensure that sample collection, preservation, transport, and analysis minimizes loss of HAP and maintains sample integrity. (b) Method for calculating total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration. For each process wastewater stream analyzed using the methods specified in paragraph (a) of this section, calculate the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP analyzed as required in § 63.11965(f)(1) by using Equation 1 to this section. Where: CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, in parts per million by weight (ppmw). Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the sample analyzed pursuant to § 63.11965(f)(1) excluding vinyl chloride, in ppmw, where a value of zero should be used for any HAP concentration that is below the detection limit. Notifications, Reports and Records § 63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when? In addition to the notifications and reports required in subpart A of this part, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the additional information and reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, as applicable. (a) Notification of compliance status. When submitting the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h), you must also include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section, as applicable. (1) You must include an identification of the storage vessels subject to this subpart, including the capacity and liquid stored for each vessel. You must submit the information specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for each pressure vessel. (2) You must include the information specified in § 63.1039(a) for equipment leaks. (3) You must include an identification of the heat exchange systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart. (4) You must include the operating limit for each monitoring parameter identified for each control device used to meet the emission limits in Table 1 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22931 or 2 to this subpart, as determined pursuant to § 63.11935(d). This report must include the information in § 63.11935(d)(2), as applicable. (5) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for process vents. (i) You must include the performance test records specified in § 63.11990(f)(1), as applicable. These reports must include one complete test report for each test method used for each process vent. A complete test report must include a brief process description, sampling site description, description of sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures, quality assurance procedures, record of operating conditions during the test, record of preparation of standards, record of calibrations, raw data sheets for field sampling, raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses, documentation of calculations and any other information required by the test method. For additional tests performed for the same kind of emission point using the same method, the results and any other information required in applicable sections of this subpart must be submitted, but a complete test report is not required. (ii) You must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section for batch process vent operations. (A) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions for control devices including results of emissions profiles. (B) Calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance according to §§ 63.11945 and 63.11950, including documentation of the proper operation of a process condenser(s) as specified in § 63.11950(c)(2)(ii). (C) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to calculate emissions in accordance with § 63.11950(i). (iii) If you use a control device other than those listed in § 63.11940 for your process vent, then you must include a description of the parameters to be monitored to ensure the control device is operated in conformance with its design and achieves the specified emission limitation; an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter; and a description of the methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the control device, the schedule for this demonstration, and a statement that you will establish an operating limit for the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 ER17AP12.019</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations monitored parameter as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. (6) [Reserved] (7) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for resin strippers. (i) You must include an identification of each resin stripper and resin type subject to the requirements of this subpart. (ii) You must include results of the initial testing used to determine initial compliance with the stripped resin limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (8) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for process wastewater. (i) You must include an identification of each process wastewater stream subject to the requirements of this subpart, and the results of your determination for each stream as to whether it must be treated to meet the limits of Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must also include a description of the treatment process to be used for each process wastewater stream that requires treatment. (ii) You must include results of the initial sampling used to determine initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (9) You must include a certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, as applicable that states the following: (i) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for storage vessels.’’ (ii) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for equipment leaks.’’ (iii) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for heat exchange systems.’’ (iv) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for HAP emissions from process vents.’’ (v) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for other emission sources.’’ (vi) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for the stripped resin.’’ (vii) ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart for wastewater.’’ (b) Compliance reports. When submitting the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report required in § 63.10(e)(3), you must also include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) of this section, as applicable. This report is VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 referred to in this subpart as your compliance report. (1) You must include a copy of the inspection record specified in § 63.11990(b)(2) for each storage vessel when a defect, failure, or leak is detected. You must also include a copy of the applicable information specified in § 63.1039(b)(5) through (8) of subpart UU of this part for each pressure vessel. (2) You must include the information specified in § 63.1039(b) for equipment leaks, except for releases from pressure relief devices. For any releases from pressure relief devices, you must submit the report specified in paragraph (c)(7) of this section instead of the information specified in § 63.1039(b)(4) of subpart UU of this part. (3) You must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section for heat exchange systems. (i) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service. (ii) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service found to be leaking. (iii) A summary of the monitoring data that indicate a leak, including the number of leaks determined to be equal to or greater than the leak definition. (iv) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the source of the leak was identified and the date of repair. (v) If applicable, a summary of each delayed repair, including the original date and reason for the delay and the date of repair, if repaired during the reporting period. (vi) If applicable, an estimate of total VOC or vinyl chloride emissions for each delayed repair over the reporting period. (4) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for process vents, resin strippers, and wastewater. (i) Deviations using CEMS or CPMS. For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit where a CEMS or CPMS is being used to comply with the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(A) through (E) of this section. (A) For CEMS, the 3-hour block average value calculated for any period when the value is higher than an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart or when the value does not meet the data availability requirements defined in § 63.11890(c). (B) For CPMS, the average value calculated for any day (based on the data averaging periods for compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart) that PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 does not meet your operating limit established according to § 63.11935(d) or that does not meet the data availability requirements specified in § 63.11890(c). (C) The cause for the calculated emission level or operating parameter level to not meet the established emission limit or operating limit. (D) For deviations caused by lack of monitoring data, the duration of periods when monitoring data were not collected. (E) Operating logs of batch process operations for each day during which the deviation occurred, including a description of the operating scenario(s) during the deviation. (ii) New operating scenario. Include each new operating scenario that has been operated since the time period covered by the last compliance report and has not been submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a previous compliance report. For each new operating scenario, you must provide verification that the operating conditions for any associated control or treatment device have not been exceeded and constitute proper operation for the new operating scenario. You must provide any required calculations and engineering analyses that have been performed for the new operating scenario. For the purposes of this paragraph (b)(4)(ii), a revised operating scenario for an existing process is considered to be a new operating scenario when one or more of the data elements listed in § 63.11990(e)(4) have changed. (iii) Process changes. You must document process changes, or changes made to any of the information submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a previous compliance report, that is not within the scope of an existing operating scenario, in the compliance report. The notification must include all of the information in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) A description of the process change. (B) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original notification of compliance status report as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. (C) Information required by the notification of compliance status report, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, for changes involving the addition of processes, components, or equipment at the affected source. (5) You must submit the applicable information specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section for process vents. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations (i) For catalytic thermal oxidizers for which you have selected the alternative monitoring specified in § 63.11940(b)(3), results of the annual catalyst sampling and inspections required by § 63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii) including any subsequent corrective actions taken. (ii) For regenerative adsorbers, results of the adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compounds concentration measurements specified in § 63.11940(d)(7). (iii) For non-regenerative adsorbers, results of the adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compounds concentration measurements specified in § 63.11940(e)(2). (6) You must include the records specified in § 63.11990(j) for other emission sources. (7) For resin stripper operations, you must include results of daily vinyl chloride and monthly total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration results for each resin type produced within the PVCPU that did not meet the stripped resin emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as applicable. (8) You must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section for your wastewater streams. (i) Results of daily vinyl chloride and monthly total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration results for each process wastewater stream discharged from the affected source that did not meet the process wastewater emission limits in Tables 1 or 2 to this subpart. (ii) If you must comply with § 63.11965, then you must include any other applicable information that is required by the reporting requirements specified in § 63.146. (9) For closed vent systems subject to the requirements of § 63.11930, you must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable. (i) As applicable, records as specified in § 63.11930(g)(1)(i) for all times when flow was detected in the bypass line, the vent stream was diverted from the control device, or the flow indicator was not operating. (ii) As applicable, records as specified in § 63.11930(g)(1)(ii) for all occurrences of all periods when a bypass of the system was indicated (the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been broken). (iii) Records of all times when monitoring of the system was not performed as specified in § 63.11930(d) and (e), or repairs were not performed VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 as specified in § 63.11930(f), or records were not kept as specified in § 63.11930(g)(2). (iv) Records of each time an alarm on a closed vent system operating in vacuum service is triggered as specified in § 63.11930(h) including the cause for the alarm and the corrective action taken. (10) Closed vent system in vacuum service, bypass deviation, or pressure vessel closure device deviation report. If any pressure vessel closure device or closed vent system that contains a bypass has directly discharged to the atmosphere, or any closed vent system that is designed to be in vacuum service and is operating and but not in vacuum service, as specified in §§ 63.11910(c)(4), 63.11930(c) or 63.11930(h), you must submit to the Administrator the following information: (i) The source, nature and cause of the discharge. (ii) The date, time and duration of the discharge. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and total HAP emitted during the discharge and the method used for determining this quantity. (iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge. (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges (11) Affirmative defense report. If you seek to assert an affirmative defense, as provided in § 63.11895, then you must submit a written report as specified in § 63.11895(b) to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that you have met the requirements set forth in § 63.11895(a). (12) Overlap with Title V reports. Information required by this subpart, which is submitted with a Title V periodic report, does not need to be included in a subsequent compliance report required by this subpart or subpart referenced by this subpart. The Title V report must be referenced in the compliance report required by this subpart. (c) Other notifications and reports. You must submit the other notification and reports, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section, as applicable. (1) Notification of inspection. To provide the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present, you must notify the Administrator at least 30 days before an inspection required by § 63.11910(a)(3). If an inspection is unplanned and you could not have known about the inspection 30 days in advance, then you must notify the Administrator at least 7 days before the inspection. Notification must be PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22933 made by telephone immediately followed by written documentation demonstrating why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, the notification including the written documentation may be made in writing and sent so that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days before the inspection. If a delegated state or local agency is notified, you are not required to notify the Administrator. A delegated state or local agency may waive the requirement for notification of inspections. (2) Batch precompliance report. You must submit a batch precompliance report at least 6 months prior to the compliance date of this subpart that includes a description of the test conditions, data, calculations and other information used to establish operating limits according to § 63.11935(d) for all batch operations. If you use an engineering assessment as specified in § 63.11950(i), then you must also include data or other information supporting a finding that the emissions estimation equations in § 63.11950(a) through (h) are inappropriate. If the EPA disapproves the report, then you must still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards of this subpart by your compliance date. To change any of the information submitted in the report, you must notify the EPA 60 days before you implement the planned change. (3) Other control device reporting provisions. If you are using a control device other than those listed in this subpart, then you must submit the information as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) A description of the proposed control device. (ii) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the control device is operated in conformance with its design and achieves the performance level as specified in this subpart and an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s). (iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and reporting if monitoring and recording is not continuous, or if the compliance report information, as specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section, will not contain 3-hour block average values when the monitored parameter value does not meet the established operating limit. The rationale for the proposed monitoring, recording and reporting system must be included. (4) Request for approval to use alternative monitoring methods. Prior to your initial notification of compliance status, you may submit requests for approval to use alternatives to the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations continuous operating parameter monitoring specified in this rule, as provided for in § 63.11940(h), following the same procedure as specified in § 63.8. The information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section must be included. (i) A description of the proposed alternative system. (ii) Information justifying your request for an alternative method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the affected source using the required method. (5) Request for approval to monitor alternative parameters. Prior to your initial notification of compliance status, you may submit requests for approval to monitor a different parameter than those established in § 63.11935(d), following the same procedure as specified for alternative monitoring methods in § 63.8. The information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section must be included in the request. (i) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the control technology or pollution prevention measure is operated in conformance with its design and achieves the specified emission limit and an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s). (ii) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the control device, the schedule for this demonstration, and a statement that you will establish an operating limit for the monitored parameter(s) as part of the notification of compliance status if required under this subpart, unless this information has already been submitted. (iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and reporting, if monitoring and recording is not continuous. The rationale for the proposed monitoring, recording, and reporting system must be included. (6) [Reserved] (7) Pressure relief device deviation report. If any pressure relief device in HAP service has discharged to the atmosphere as specified in § 63.11915(c), then you must submit to the Administrator within 10 days of the discharge the following information: (i) The source, nature, and cause of the discharge. (ii) The date, time, and duration of the discharge. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and total HAP emitted during the discharge and the method used for determining this quantity. (iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges. (8) Commencing and ceasing operation of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Before starting or stopping the use of CEMS you must notify the Administrator as specified in § 63.11935(b)(7). (9) Data submittal. (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of performance tests electronically to the EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file format generated through use of the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ ert_tool.html). Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the confidential business information, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation test (see § 63.2), you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically into the EPA’s CDX by using the ERT, as mentioned in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section. Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to the EPA’s CDX. (iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any form PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format. § 63.11990 What records must I keep? You must keep records as specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section, as applicable. (a) Copies of reports. You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you submit to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any notification or report. You must also keep copies of the current versions of the site-specific performance evaluation test plan, sitespecific monitoring plan, and the equipment leak detection and repair plan. (b) Storage vessels. For storage vessels, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) You must keep a record of the dimensions of the storage vessel, an analysis of the capacity of the storage vessel and an identification of the liquid stored. (2) Inspection records for fixed roofs complying with § 63.11910 including the information specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Record the date of each inspection required by § 63.11910(a)(3). (ii) For each defect detected during an inspection required by § 63.11910(a)(3), record the location of the defect, a description of the defect, the date of detection and corrective action taken to repair the defect. In the event that repair of the defect is delayed in accordance with § 63.11910(a)(4)(ii), also record the reason for the delay and the date that completion of repair of the defect is expected. (3) [Reserved] (4) For pressure vessels, you must keep the records specified in paragraph (c) of this section for each pressure vessel. (5) For internal and external floating roof storage vessels, you must maintain the records required in § 63.1065 of subpart WW of this part. (6) For fixed roof storage vessels that route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device, during periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device, record the day and time at which planned routine maintenance periods begin and end, and the type of maintenance performed on the control device. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, keep a record that explains why additional time up to 360 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations hr/yr was needed and describes how you minimized the amount of additional time needed. (c) Equipment leaks. For equipment leaks, you must maintain the records specified in § 63.1038 of subpart UU of this part for equipment leaks and a record of the information specified in § 63.11930(g)(4) for monitoring instrument calibrations conducted according to § 63.11930(e)(2). (d) Heat exchange systems. For a heat exchange system subject to this subpart, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Identification of all heat exchangers at the facility and the measured or estimated average annual HAP concentration of process fluid or intervening cooling fluid processed in each heat exchanger. (2) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are in HAP service. For each heat exchange system that is subject to this subpart, you must include identification of all heat exchangers within each heat exchange system, identification of the individual heat exchangers in HAP service within each heat exchange system, and for closed-loop recirculation systems, the cooling tower included in each heat exchange system. (3) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are exempt from the monitoring requirements according to the provisions in § 63.11920(b) and the provision under which the heat exchange system is exempt. (4) Results of the following monitoring data for each monitoring event: (i) Date/time of event. (ii) Heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return line flow at the sampling location, gallons/minute. (iii) Monitoring method employed. (iv) The measured cooling water concentration for each of target analyte (parts per billion by weight). (v) Calibration and recovery information identified in the test method used. (5) The date when a leak was identified and the date when the heat exchanger was repaired or taken out of service. (6) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the schedule for completing the repair, and the estimate of potential emissions for the delay of repair. (e) Process vent monitoring. You must include the records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable, for process vent monitoring. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 (1) Continuous records. Where this subpart requires a continuous record using CEMS or CPMS, you must maintain, at a minimum, the records specified in § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A). (2) Excluded data. In any average computed to determine compliance, you must exclude monitoring data recorded during periods specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the monitoring applies. (ii) Periods of no flow to a control device. (iii) Monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities, as specified in § 63.11890(c)(2). (3) Records of calculated emission and operating parameter values. You must retain for 5 years, a record of CEMS and CPMS data as specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless an alternative recordkeeping system has been requested and approved. (i) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, retain for 5 years, the records of the average values for each continuously monitored operating parameter and pollutant specified in §§ 63.11925(e)(3)(ii) and 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B) for CEMS and CPMS. (ii) In lieu of calculating and recording the average value specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) of this section, if all 1-hour averages specified in § 63.11935(e) demonstrate compliance with your parameter operating limit or the applicable pollutant emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the block average period, you may record a statement that all recorded 1-hour averages met the operating limit or emission limit, as applicable, and retain for 5 years this statement and all recorded CPMS or CEMS data for the block average period. (4) Information to be included in records. You must keep records of each operating scenario as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (viii) of this section, as applicable. (i) You must keep a schedule or log of operating scenarios, updated each time a different operating scenario is put into effect. (ii) A description of the process and the type of process components used. (iii) An identification of related process vents including their associated emissions episodes. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22935 (iv) The applicable control requirements of this subpart for process vents. (v) The control device, including a description of operating and testing conditions. (vi) Combined emissions that are routed to the same control device. (vii) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and any operating limit that assures compliance for all emissions routed to the control device. (viii) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate compliance. (f) Process vents. You must include the records specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable, for process vents. (1) Records of performance tests as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). You must also collect the applicable control device operating parameters required in § 63.11940 over the full period of the performance test. (2) If you use a control device to comply with this subpart and you are required to use CPMS, then you must keep up-to-date and readily accessible records for your process vents as specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable. (i) If you use a flow indicator, then you must keep records of periods of no flow to the control device, including the start and stop time and dates of periods of flow and no flow. (ii) If you use a catalytic oxidizer for which you have selected the alternative monitoring specified in § 63.11940(b)(3), then you must also maintain records of the results of the annual catalyst sampling and inspections required by § 63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii) including any subsequent corrective actions taken. (iii) If you use a regenerative adsorber as specified in § 63.11940(d), then the records specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, as applicable, must be kept. (A) Records of total regeneration stream mass flow for each adsorber-bed regeneration cycle. (B) Records of the temperature of the adsorber bed after each regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle. (C) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, records of the temperature of the adsorber bed during each regeneration except during any temperature regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle. (D) If adsorber regeneration vacuum is monitored pursuant to § 63.11940(d)(4), then you must keep records of the E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations vacuum profile over time and the amount of time the vacuum level is below the minimum vacuum target for each adsorber-bed regeneration cycle. (E) Records of the regeneration frequency and duration. (F) Daily records of the verification inspections, including the visual observations and/or any activation of an automated alarm or shutdown system with a written entry into a log book or other permanent form of record. (G) Records of the maximum volatile organic compound or HAP outlet concentration observed over the last 5 minutes of the adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed. Records must be weekly or for every regeneration cycle if the regeneration cycle is greater than 1 week. (H) Records of the date and time the adsorbent had last been replaced. (iv) If you use a non-regenerative adsorber as specified in § 63.11940(e), then the records specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section, as applicable, must be kept. (A) A record of the average life of the bed, as determined by § 63.11940(e)(1), including the date the average life was determined. (B) Daily, weekly, or monthly records of the maximum volatile organic compound or HAP outlet concentration, as specified by § 63.11940(e)(2). (C) Records of bed replacement including the date and time the adsorbent had last been replaced, and the date and time in which breakthrough is detected. (g) Closed vent systems. You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section, and you must record any additional information as specified in § 63.11930, as applicable. (1) Each alarm triggered because flow was detected in a bypass as specified in § 63.11930(g)(1)(i). (2) Inspections of seals or closure mechanisms as specified in § 63.11930(g)(1)(ii). (3) Copies of compliance reports for closed vent system leak inspections as specified in § 63.11985(b)(9) and § 63.11930(g)(2) and (3). (4) Instrument calibration records as specified in § 63.11930(g)(4). (5) Unsafe-to-inspect equipment as specified in § 63.11930(g)(5). (6) Pressure alarms as specified by § 63.11930(h)(2) and (3). (h) Resin strippers. For resin strippers, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) All resin sampling data, including daily measurements of the concentration of vinyl chloride and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 monthly measurements of the total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP compounds in the stripped resin for each type and grade of resin produced. Each sample must be identified by the resin type and resin grade, the date and time the sample was taken, identification of the resin stripper from which the sample was taken, and the corresponding quantity (pounds) of resin processed by the stripper for the batch or over the time period represented by the sample. (2) The total quantity (pounds) of each resin grade produced per day and the total quantity of resin processed by each resin stripper, identified by resin type and resin grade, per day. (i) Process wastewater. For treatment processes, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) A description of the process wastewater generation activities and treatment process. (2) Records of the treatment determinations specified in § 63.11965(b) for each wastewater stream and the type of treatment applied if required in § 63.11965(c). (3) Records of the initial performance test specified in § 63.11970(a) and (b). (4) All testing data, including monthly measurements of the concentrations of vinyl chloride and the concentration of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream required to be measured, as specified in § 63.11975. (5) You must keep any other applicable records that are required by the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.147 of subpart G of this part. (j) Other emission sources. You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) All engineering calculations, testing, sampling, and monitoring results and data specified in § 63.11955. (2) Each occurrence that you do not comply with the requirements in § 63.11955. § 63.11995 In what form and how long must I keep my records? (a) You must keep records for 5 years in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, as specified in § 63.10(b)(1). (b) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years, as specified in § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years. Records may be maintained in hard copy or computer-readable format including, but not limited to, on paper, microfilm, hard disk drive, floppy disk, compact disk, magnetic tape or microfiche. PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 § 63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the Administrator, as defined in § 63.2, or a delegated authority such as your state, local or tribal agency. If the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, local or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local or tribal agency, the authorities listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the state, local or tribal agency, however, the EPA retains oversight of this subpart and can take enforcement actions, as appropriate. (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards specified in this subpart. (2) Approval of a major change to test methods, as defined in § 63.90, approval of any proposed analysis methods, and approval of any proposed test methods. (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring, as defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting, as defined in § 63.90. Definitions § 63.12005 subpart? What definitions apply to this Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section, as follows: Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that is associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more than one batch emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor resulting from the charging of a vessel with HAP will result in a discrete emission episode that will last through the duration of the charge and will have an average flowrate equal to the rate of the charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will also be another discrete emission episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded vapor. Both E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations emission episodes may occur in the same vessel or unit operation. There are possibly other emission episodes that may occur from the vessel or other process components, depending on process operations. Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into process components, and, in general, involves the emptying of the process components after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a batch operation. Batch process vent means a vent from a batch operation from a PVCPU through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device. Emissions for all emission episodes associated with the unit operation(s) are part of the batch process vent. Batch process vents also include vents with intermittent flow from continuous operations. Examples of batch process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for product recovery, polymerization reactors, and process tanks. Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further downstream processing. A rundown tank is an example of a bottoms receiver. Bulk process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that is characterized by a two-step anhydrous polymerization process: the formation of small resin particles in a pre-polymerization reactor using small amounts of vinyl chloride monomer, an initiator, and agitation; and the growth of the resin particles in a postpolymerization reactor using additional vinyl chloride monomer. Resins produced using the bulk process are referred to as bulk resins. Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission control device. Calendar year means the period between January 1 and December 31, inclusive for a given year. Capacity means the nominal figure or rating given by the manufacturer of the storage vessel, condenser, or other process component. Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a way that the position VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 of the valve cannot be changed without breaking the seal. Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, flow inducing devices that collect or transport gas or vapor from an emission point to a control device. Combustion device means an individual unit used for the combustion of organic emissions, such as a flare, incinerator, process heater, or boiler. Conservation vent means an automatically operated (e.g., weightloaded or spring-loaded) safety device used to prevent the operating pressure of a storage vessel from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents must be designed to open only when the operating pressure of the storage vessel exceeds the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents open and close to permit only the intake or outlet relief necessary to keep the storage vessel within permissible working pressures, and reseal automatically. Container means a portable unit in which a material can be stored, transported, treated, disposed of or otherwise handled. Examples of containers include, but are not limited to, drums, pails, and portable cargo containers known as ‘‘portable tanks’’ or ‘‘totes.’’ Container does not include transport vehicles or barges. Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) means the total equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition (if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of emissions. Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch operation. Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability requirements of this part, used to sample, condition (if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of process or control system parameters. Continuous process vent means a vent from a continuous PVCPU operation through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device and has the following characteristics: (1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU. PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22937 (2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control device meets at least one of the following conditions: (i) Is directly from any continuous operation. (ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU. (iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy from a gas stream that comes either directly from any continuous operation, or from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU. Continuous PVCPU operation means any operation that is not a batch operation or an operation that generates a miscellaneous process vent. Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 15 minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in § 63.11990(e)(1). Control device means, with the exceptions noted in this definition, a combustion device, recovery device, recapture device or any combination of these devices used to comply with this subpart. Process condensers are not control devices. Control system means the combination of the closed vent system and the control devices used to collect and control vapors or gases from a regulated emission source. Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove the heat absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by transferring the heat to the atmosphere using natural or mechanical draft. Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines at the inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere. Corrective action plan means a description of all reasonable interim and long-term measures, if any, that are available, and an explanation of why the selected corrective action is the best alternative, including, but not limited to, any consideration of costeffectiveness. Day means a calendar day, unless otherwise specified in this subpart. Dioxin/furans means total tetrathrough octachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans. Dispersion process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that is characterized by the formation of the polymers in soap micelles that contain small amounts of vinyl chloride monomer. Emulsifiers are used to E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations disperse vinyl chloride monomer in the water phase. Initiators used in the dispersion process are soluble in water. Resins produced using the dispersion process are referred to as latex or dispersion resins. Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of stored liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that contain liquid only as a result of the liquid clinging to the walls or bottoms, or resting in pools due to bottom irregularities, are considered completely empty. Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector and instrumentation system in HAP service; and any control devices or systems used to comply with this subpart. Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a storage vessel, but not necessarily to capacity. First attempt at repair, for the purposes of this subpart, means to take action for the purpose of stopping or reducing leakage of organic material to the atmosphere, followed by monitoring as specified in § 63.11930(f) to verify whether the leak is repaired, unless the owner or operator determines by other means that the leak is not repaired. Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is mounted (i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move with fluctuations in stored liquid level. Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is, or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be, present in a line. Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating in a vessel filled with water that is used to store gases from the PVC production process prior to being recovered or sent to a process vent control device. The bell rises and falls as low-pressure gases enter and leave the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal between the enclosed gas within the floating bell and the ambient air. Grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it as a unique resin, i.e., the most exact description of a type of resin with no further subdivision. Examples include low molecular weight suspension resins and general purpose suspension resins. Hard-piping means pipes or tubing that are manufactured and properly installed using good engineering judgment and an appropriate standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists or you may use an industry standard practice. Consensus-based VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 standards organizations include, but are not limited to, American National Standards Institute (ANSI, 1819 L Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, https://www.ansi.org). Heat exchange system means a device or collection of devices used to transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., noncontact heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system (e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers that are serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). For oncethrough systems, the heat exchange system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation of a wastewater. Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from the exit of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat exchangers) to either the entrance of the cooling tower return line or prior to exposure to the atmosphere or mixing with non-cooling water streams, in, as an example, a once-through cooling system, whichever occurs first. In HAP service means that a process component either contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP as determined according to the provisions of § 63.180(d). For the purposes of this definition, the term ‘‘organic HAP’’ as used in § 63.180(d) means HAP. The provisions of § 63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a process component is not in HAP service. In vacuum service means that the process component is operating at an internal pressure that is at least 5 kilopascals (kPa) (0.7 pounds per square inch absolute) below ambient pressure. Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device with an enclosed fire box that is used for destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste gas to combustion temperatures. Any energy recovery section present is not physically formed into one manufactured or assembled unit with the combustion section; rather, the energy recovery section is a separate section following the combustion section and the two are joined by ducts or connections carrying flue gas. This energy recovery section limitation does not apply to an energy PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 recovery section used solely to preheat the incoming vent stream or combustion air. Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components such as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system, draining of portions of the PVCPU for repair and water used to wash out process components or equipment after the process components or equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere and has met the requirements of § 63.11955. Maximum representative operating conditions means process operating conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the control device. The most challenging condition for the control device may include, but is not limited to, the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate to the control device, the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for scrubbing media, the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media. Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by the total HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the liquid storage or transfer temperature for liquids stored or transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the local maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature, as determined by any one of the following methods or references: (1) In accordance with methods described in API MPMS 19.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (2) As obtained from standard reference texts. (3) As determined by ASTM D2879– 83 or ASTM D2879–96 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (4) Any other method approved by the Administrator. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Miscellaneous vent means gaseous emissions from samples, loading and unloading lines, slip gauges, process wastewater treatment systems and pressure relief devices that are routed through a closed vent system to a control device and that are not equipment leaks. Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing operating scenario, but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction. Operating block means a period of time that is equal to the time from the beginning to end of batch process operations within a process. Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which PVC is produced at any time in the PVCPU. It is not necessary for PVC to be produced for the entire 24-hour period. Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and recordkeeping, any specific operation of a regulated process as described by reports specified in § 63.11985(b)(4)(ii) and records specified in § 63.11990(e)(4). Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary or any combination thereof. Polymerization reactor means any vessel in which vinyl chloride is partially or totally polymerized into polyvinyl chloride. For bulk processes, the polymerization reactor includes prepolymerization reactors and postpolymerization reactors. Polyvinyl chloride means either polyvinyl chloride homopolymer or polyvinyl chloride copolymer. Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or PVCPU means a collection of process components assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl chloride copolymers. A PVCPU includes, but is not limited to, polymerization reactors; resin stripping VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 operations; resin blend tanks; resin centrifuges; resin dryers; resin product separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw material charge vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing tanks; finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; equipment including pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, openended valves or lines, valves and connectors and instrumentation systems. A PVCPU does not include chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in § 63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw materials used in the PVC polymerization process. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the simultaneous polymerization of vinyl chloride and another monomer such as vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by different processes, including, but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, and solution processes. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the polymerization of vinyl chloride and has the general chemical structure (H2CCHCl-)n. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is typically a white powder or colorless granule. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is produced by different processes, including (but not limited to), suspension, dispersion/ emulsion, blending, and bulk processes. Pressure relief device means a safety device used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. A common pressure relief device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Pressure vessel means a vessel that is used to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity. Process change means an addition to or change in a PVCPU and/or its associated process components that creates one or more emission points or changes the characteristics of an emission point such that a new or different emission limit, operating parameter limit, or work practice requirement applies to the added or changed emission points. Examples of process changes include, but are not limited to, changes in production PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22939 capacity, production rate, or catalyst type, or whenever there is replacement, removal, or addition of recovery device components. For purposes of this definition, process changes do not include process upsets, changes that do not alter the process component configuration and operating conditions, and unintentional, temporary process changes. A process change does not include moving within a range of conditions identified in the standard batch, and a nonstandard batch does not constitute a process change. Process component means any unit operation or group of units operations or any part of a process or group of parts of a process that are assembled to perform a specific function (e.g., polymerization reactor, dryers, etc.). Process components include equipment, as defined in this section. Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to recover material as an integral part of a batch process. All condensers recovering condensate from a batch process at or above the boiling point or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in series are considered to be integral to the batch regulated process if they are capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. This definition does not apply to a condenser that is used to remove materials that would hinder performance of a downstream recovery device as follows: (1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream condenser. (2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber. (3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration of a downstream adsorber. Process tank means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel) that is used within an affected source to both: (1) Collect material discharged from a feedstock storage vessel, process tank, or other PVCPU process component, and (2) discharge the material to another process tank, process component, byproduct storage vessel, or product storage vessel. Process unit means the process components assembled and connected by pipes or ducts to process raw and/or intermediate materials and to manufacture an intended product. For the purpose of this subpart, process unit E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 22940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations includes, but is not limited to, polyvinyl chloride production process. Process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the manifolding of each and all batch process vent, continuous process vent, or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected facility into a closed vent system and into a common header that is routed to a control device. The process vent standards apply at the outlet of the control device. A process vent is either a PVC-only process vent or a PVC-combined process vent. Process wastewater means wastewater that comes into direct contact with HAP or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product containing HAP, but that has not been discharged untreated as wastewater. Examples are product tank drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during a chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic products or reactants; water used to cool or quench organic vapor streams through direct contact; water discarded from a control device; and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels containing organics. Gasholder seal water is not process wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder. Process wastewater treatment system means a specific technique or collection of techniques that remove or destroy the organics in a process wastewater stream to comply with §§ 63.11965, 63.11970, and 63.11975. Product means a polymer produced using the same monomers and varying in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators, etc.); catalysts; or in the relative proportions of monomers, that is manufactured by a process unit. With respect to polymers, more than one recipe may be used to produce the same product, and there can be more than one grade of a product. Product also means a chemical that is not a polymer, which is manufactured by a process unit. Byproducts, isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace contaminants are not considered products. PVC-combined process vent means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is combined with one or more process vents originating from another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere. PVC-only process vent means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is not combined with a process vent originating from another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 Recipe means a specific composition from among the range of possible compositions that may occur within a product, as defined in this section. A recipe is determined by the proportions of monomers and, if present, other reactants and additives that are used to make the recipe. Recovery device means an individual process component capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of process components that may be recovery devices include absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, oilwater separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such as decanters, strippers (e.g., wastewater steam and vacuum strippers), or thin-film evaporation units. For purposes of this subpart, recovery devices are control devices. Repaired, for the purposes of this subpart, means equipment that is adjusted or otherwise altered to eliminate a leak as defined in the applicable sections of this subpart; and unless otherwise specified in applicable provisions of this subpart, is inspected as specified in § 63.11930(f) to verify that emissions from the equipment are below the applicable leak definition. Resin stripper means a unit that removes organic compounds from a raw polyvinyl chloride and copolymer product. In the production of a polymer, stripping is a discrete step that occurs after the polymerization reaction and before drying or other finishing operations. Examples of types of stripping include steam stripping, vacuum stripping, or other methods of devolatilization. For the purposes of this subpart, devolatilization that occurs in dryers or other finishing operations is not resin stripping. Resin stripping may occur in a polymerization reactor or in a batch or continuous stripper separate from the polymerization reactor where resin stripping occurs. Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a process of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any other significant contributing cause(s), of a discharge of gases in excess of specified thresholds. Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level. Slip gauge means a gauge that has a probe that moves through the gas/liquid interface in a storage vessel and indicates the level of product in the vessel by the physical state of the material the gauge discharges. PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Solution process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride copolymer resin that is characterized by the anhydrous formation of the polymer through precipitation. Polymerization occurs in an organic solvent in the presence of an initiator where vinyl chloride monomer and co-monomers are soluble in the solvent, but the polymer is not. The PVC copolymer is a granule suspended in the solvent, which then precipitates out of solution. Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not used in the solution process. PVC copolymer resins produced using the solution process are referred to as solution resins. Specific gravity monitoring device means a unit of equipment used to monitor specific gravity and having a minimum accuracy of ±0.02 specific gravity units. Standard procedure means a formal written procedure officially adopted by the plant owner or operator and available on a routine basis to those persons responsible for carrying out the procedure. Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel) that is part of an affected source and is used to store a gaseous, liquid, or solid feedstock, byproduct, or product that contains organic HAP. Storage vessel does not include: (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships; (2) Process tanks; (3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 10,040 gallons; (4) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP only as impurities; (5) Bottoms receiver tanks; (6) Surge control vessels; and (7) Wastewater storage tanks. Wastewater storage tanks are covered under the wastewater provisions. Stripped resin means the material exiting the resin stripper that contains polymerized vinyl chloride. Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to a vent stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. Air that is part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of the unit operation is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to operate combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic oxidizers, to include the intermittent addition of air upstream of the catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is not considered to be supplemental combustion air. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and intermediate vessels used as a part of any continuous operation. Surge control vessels are used within an affected source when inprocess storage, mixing, or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous operations. Surge control vessels also include gasholders. Suspension blending process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that is similar to the suspension polymerization process, but employs a rate of agitation that is significantly higher than the highest range for non-blending suspension resins. The suspension blending process uses a recipe that creates extremely small resin particles, generally equal to or less than 100 microns in size, with a glassy surface and very little porosity. The suspension blending process concentrates the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically designed to handle these small particles. Polyvinyl chloride resins produced using the suspension blending process are referred to as suspension blending resins and are typically blended with dispersion resins. Suspension process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that is characterized by the formation of the polymers in droplets of liquid vinyl chloride monomer or other comonomers suspended in water. The droplets are formed by agitation and the use of protective colloids or suspending agents. Initiators used in the suspension process are soluble in vinyl chloride monomer. Polyvinyl chloride resins produced using the suspension process are referred to as suspension resins. Table 10 HAP means a HAP compound listed in table 10 of this subpart. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP, as calculated according to the procedures specified in §§ 63.11960(f) and 63.11980(b). Type of resin means the broad classification of PVC homopolymer and copolymer resin referring to the basic manufacturing process for producing that resin, including, but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, bulk, and solution processes. Unloading operations means the transfer of organic liquids from a 22941 transport vehicle, container, or storage vessel to process components within the affected source. Wastewater means process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this subpart: (1) Stormwater from segregated sewers; (2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing of such systems; (3) Spills; (4) Water from safety showers; (5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the method of analysis that is used; (6) Equipment leaks; (7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses after cleaning lines; and (8) Noncontact cooling water. Wastewater stream means a stream that contains only wastewater as defined in this section. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES For this type of emission point . . . And for this air pollutant . . . And for an affected source producing this type of PVC resin . . . You must meet this emission limit . . . 1. PVC-only process vents a .......... a. Vinyl chloride ............................ All resin types ............................... b. Total hydrocarbons ................... c. Total organic HAP b .................. d. Hydrogen chloride .................... e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). All All All All resin resin resin resin types types types types ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 6.0 parts per million by volume (ppmv). 9.7 ppmv measured as propane. 56 ppmv. 78 ppmv. 0.038 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). 2. PVC-combined process vents a a. Vinyl chloride ............................ b. Total hydrocarbons ................... c. Total organic HAP b .................. d. Hydrogen chloride .................... e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). All All All All All resin resin resin resin resin types types types types types ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 1.1 ppmv. 4.2 ppmv measured as propane. 9.8 ppmv. 380 ppmv. 0.051 ng/dscm. 3. Stripped resin ............................ a. Vinyl chloride ............................ i. Bulk resin ................................... ii. Dispersion resin ........................ iii. Suspension resin ..................... iv. Suspension blending resin ...... v. Copolymer resin ....................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. 4. Process Wastewater .................. a. Vinyl chloride ............................ b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. ii. Dispersion resin ........................ iii. Suspension resin ..................... iv. Suspension blending resin ...... v. Copolymer resin ....................... i. Bulk resin ................................... 7.1 parts per million by weight (ppmw). 1300 ppmw. 37 ppmw. 140 ppmw. 790 ppmw. 170 ppmw. 240 ppmw. 670 ppmw. 500 ppmw. 1900 ppmw. All resin types ............................... All resin types ............................... 6.8 ppmw. 110 ppmw. a Emission b Total limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW AFFECTED SOURCES For this type of emission point . . . And for this air pollutant . . . And for an affected source producing this type of PVC resin . . . You must meet this emission limit . . . 1. PVC-only process vents a .......... a. Vinyl chloride ............................ b. Total hydrocarbons ................... c. Total organic HAP b .................. d. Hydrogen chloride .................... e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). All All All All All resin resin resin resin resin types types types types types ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 0.56 ppmv. 7.0 ppmv measured as propane. 5.5 ppmv. 0.17 ppmv. 0.038 ng/dscm. 2. PVC-combined process vents a a. Vinyl chloride ............................ b. Total hydrocarbons ................... c. Total organic HAP b .................. d. Hydrogen chloride .................... e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis). All All All All All resin resin resin resin resin types types types types types ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 0.56 ppmv. 2.3 ppmv measured as propane. 5.5 ppmv. 1.4 ppmv. 0.034 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). 3. Stripped resin ............................ a. Vinyl chloride ............................ i. Bulk resin ................................... ii. Dispersion resin ........................ iii. Suspension resin ..................... iv. Suspension blending resin ...... v. Copolymer—all resin types ...... i. Bulk resin ................................... 7.1 parts per million by weight (ppmw). 480 ppmw. 7.3 ppmw. 140 ppmw. 790 ppmw. 170 ppmw. ii. Dispersion resin ........................ iii. Suspension resin ..................... iv. Suspension blending resin ...... v. Copolymer resin ....................... 66 ppmw. 15 ppmw. 500 ppmw. 1900 ppmw. All resin types ............................... All resin types ............................... 0.28 ppmw. 0.018 ppmw. b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. 4. Process Wastewater .................. a. Vinyl chloride ............................ b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. a Emission b Total limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. TABLE 3 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE VESSELS AT NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES If the storage vessel capacity (gallons) is . . . And the vapor pressure a (psia) is . . . Then, you must use the following type of storage vessel . . . ≥20,000 but <40,000 ....................... ≥4 ................................................... ≥40,000 ........................................... ≥0.75 .............................................. Internal floating roof, external floating roof, or fixed roof vented to a closed vent system and control device achieving 95 percent reduction.b Internal floating roof, external floating roof, or fixed roof vented to a closed vent system and control device achieving 95 percent reduction.b Pressure vessel.c Fixed roof.d Any capacity. ................................... >11.1 .............................................. All other capacity and vapor pressure combinations .................................. a Maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at storage temperature. using a fixed roof storage vessel vented to a closed vent system and control device, you must meet the requirements in § 63.11910(a) for fixed roof storage vessels. If using an internal floating roof storage vessel or external floating roof storage vessels, you must meet the requirements in § 63.11910(b) for internal floating roof storage vessels or external floating roof storage vessels, as applicable. c Meeting the requirements of § 63.11910(c) for pressure vessels. d Meeting the requirements in § 63.11910(a) for fixed roof storage vessels. b If TABLE 4 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PART 63 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Citation Subject § 63.1(a)(1)–(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)– (a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e). § 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d). § 63.2 ............................................. Applicability ................................... Yes. [Reserved] .................................... No. Definitions ..................................... Yes ................................................ Units and abbreviations ................ Prohibited activities and circumvention. [Reserved] .................................... Yes. Yes. § 63.3 ............................................. § 63.4(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c) ............. § 63.4(a)(3)–(a)(5) .......................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:38 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Applies to subpart HHHHHHH Fmt 4701 Comment Additional definitions are found in § 63.12005. No. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22943 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PART 63—Continued Citation Subject Applies to subpart HHHHHHH § 63.5(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (d)–(f). § 63.5(b)(2), (b)(5), (c) ................... § 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1)(iii), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g), (i), (j). § 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv). § 63.6(e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(3), (f)(1). § 63.6(h)(1), (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)–(h)(5)(iii), (h)(5)(v), (h)(6)–(h)(9). § 63.7(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (b)–(d), (e)(2)–(e)(4), (f), (g)(1), (g)(3), (h). § 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(viii) ......................... § 63.7(a)(2)(ix) ................................ § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Preconstruction review and notification requirements. [Reserved] .................................... Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. No. Yes ................................................ [Reserved] No ................................................. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions. Compliance with opacity and visible emission standards. No. See § 63.11890(b) for general duty requirement. No ................................................. Performance testing requirements Yes. [Reserved] .................................... Performance testing requirements Performance testing ..................... No. Yes. No. See especially § 63.11945, 63.11960(d), 63.11980(a). No. ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes. § 63.7(g)(2) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(6)–(c)(8). [Reserved] .................................... Monitoring requirements ............... § 63.8(a)(3) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ [Reserved] .................................... Requirement to develop SSM plan for continuous monitoring systems. Continuous opacity monitoring system minimum procedures. § 63.8(d) ......................................... Written procedures for continuous monitoring systems. § 63.8(e) ......................................... Continuous monitoring systems performance evaluation. Use of an alternative monitoring method. Reduction of monitoring data ....... Notification requirements .............. Yes. Notification of opacity and visible emission observations. No ................................................. § 63.9(g)(2) ..................................... Use of continuous opacity monitoring system data. No ................................................. § 63.9(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii)–(iv), (h)(4) .... § 63.10(a), (b)(1) ............................ [Reserved] .................................... Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. Recordkeeping of malfunctions .... Subpart HHHHHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to an SSM plan. SSM plans are not required. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.11875 specifies compliance dates. No. No. No. Yes. § 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.8(f) .......................................... § 63.8(g) ......................................... § 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), (b)(5), (c)–(e), (g)(1), (g)(3), (h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j). § 63.9(f) .......................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Comment § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v) ............... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(x) ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xi)–(xiv) ..................... § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Maintenance records .................... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions. Other CMS requirements ............. Other recordkeeping requirements Recordkeeping requirement for applicability determinations. Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 No ................................................. Except cross reference in § 63.8(c)(1)(i) to § 63.6(e)(1) is replaced with a cross-reference to § 63.11890(b). Subpart HHHHHHH does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Yes. Except that the minimum data collection requirements are specified in § 63.11935(e). Subpart HHHHHHH does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous opacity monitoring system. No. No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 63.11985(b)(4)(i), 63.11985(b)(9) through (11), and 63.11985(c)(7). Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 4 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PART 63—Continued Citation Subject § 63.10(c)(1), (c)(5), (c)(6) ............. Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. [Reserved] .................................... Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying exceedances and excess emissions during SSM. Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying exceedances and excess emissions. Recording nature and cause of malfunctions. § 63.10(c)(2)–(4), (c)(9) .................. § 63.10(c)(7) ................................... § 63.10(c)(8) ................................... § 63.10(c)(10) ................................. Applies to subpart HHHHHHH 63.10(c)(11), (c)(12) ....................... Recording corrective actions ........ § 63.10(c)(13)–(14) ........................ Records of the total process operating time during the reporting period and procedures that are part of the continuous monitoring system quality control program. Use SSM plan .............................. General reporting requirements ... Performance test results .............. Opacity or visible emissions observations. § 63.10(c)(15) ................................. § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... Progress reports ........................... SSM reports .................................. § 63.10(e)(1) ................................... Additional continuous monitoring system reports—general. Results of continuous monitoring system performance evaluations. Results of continuous opacity monitoring system performance evaluations. Excess emissions/continuous monitoring system performance reports. Continuous opacity monitoring system data reports. § 63.10(e)(2)(i) ............................... § 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ............................... § 63.10(e)(3) ................................... § 63.10(e)(4) ................................... § 63.10(f) ........................................ 63.11(a) .......................................... § 63.11(b) ....................................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 63.11985(b)(4)(i), 63.11985(b)(9) through (11), and 63.11985(c)(7). No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 63.11985(b)(4)(i), 63.11985(b)(9) through (11), and 63.11985(c)(7). Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Yes. No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 63.11985(b)(4)(i), 63.11985(b)(9) through (11), and 63.11985(c)(7). Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous opacity monitoring system. Yes. No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous opacity monitoring system. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.12 ........................................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.11(c)–(e) ................................. Recordkeeping/reporting waiver ... Control device and work practice requirements—applicability. Flares ............................................ Comment Alternative work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks. State authority and delegations .... Yes ................................................ § 63.13 ........................................... § 63.14 ........................................... Addresses ..................................... Incorporations by reference .......... Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.15 ........................................... Availability of information and confidentiality. Performance track provisions ....... Facilities subject to subpart HHHHHHH do not use flares as control devices, as specified in § 63.11925(b). Yes. § 63.16 ........................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Yes. § 63.12000 identifies types of approval authority that are not delegated. Subpart HHHHHHH incorporates material by reference. Yes. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22945 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, RECORDING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES FOR PROCESS VENTS For these control devices, you must monitor these operating parameters . . . Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies Establish the following operating limit during your initial performance test . . . Data recording Data measurement Data averaging period for compliance Process Vents Any Control device Flow to/from the control device. N/A .................................... Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Date and time of flow start and stop. Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. Minimum temperature differential. Minimum inlet temperature and catalyst condition as specified in 63.11940 (b)(3). Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. Continuous for temperature, annual for catalyst condition. Every 15 minutes for temperature, annual for catalyst condition. 3-hour block average for temperature, annual for catalyst condition. Continuous ........................ Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 3-hour block average. Continuous ........................ Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 3-hour block average. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. Continuous ........................ Continuous ........................ Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Every 15 minutes .............. Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 3-hour block average. 3-hour block average. Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Continuously after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any temperature regulation. Continuously during regeneration except during any temperature regulating portion of the regeneration cycle. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes after regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any temperature regulation. N/A .................................... Total flow for each regeneration cycle. 3-hour block average. N/A .................................... Average vacuum and duration of regeneration. Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Daily .................................. Daily .................................. Date and time of regeneration start and stop. N/A. Daily until breakthrough for 3 adsorber bed changeouts. N/A .................................... N/A. Thermal Oxidizers Temperature (in fire box or downstream ductwork prior to heat exchange). Temperature differential across catalyst bed. Inlet temperature to catalyst bed and catalyst condition. Absorbers and Acid Gas Scrubbers Influent liquid flow .............. Influent liquid flow and gas stream flow. Pressure drop .................... Exhaust gas temperature .. Change in specific gravity of scrubber liquid. pH of effluent liquid ........... Causticity of effluent liquid Conductivity of effluent liquid. Minimum inlet liquid flow ... Minimum influent liquid flow to gas stream flow ratio. Minimum pressure drop .... Maximum exhaust gas temperature. Minimum change in specific gravity. Minimum pH ...................... Minimum causticity ............ Minimum conductivity ........ Regenerative Adsorber Regeneration stream flow. Adsorber bed temperature. Minimum total flow per regeneration cycle. Maximum temperature ...... Adsorber bed temperature. Minimum temperature ....... Vacuum and duratio of regeneration. Minimum vacuum and period of time for regeneration. Minimum regeneration frequency and duration. Correct valve sequencing and minimum cycle time. Regeneration frequency .... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Adsorber operation valve sequencing and cycle time. Average of regeneration cycle. Non-Regenerative Adsorber Average adsorber bed life. VerDate Mar<15>2010 N/A .................................... 18:16 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 22946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 5 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, RECORDING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES FOR PROCESS VENTS—Continued For these control devices, you must monitor these operating parameters . . . Outlet VOC concentration of the first adsorber bed in series. Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies Establish the following operating limit during your initial performance test . . . Data measurement Data recording Data averaging period for compliance Limits in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart. Daily, except monthly (if more than 2 months bed life remaining) or weekly (if more than 2 weeks bed life remaining). N/A .................................... Daily, weekly, or monthly. Maximum outlet temperature. Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. Condenser Temperature ...................... TABLE 6 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS Toxic equivalency factor Dioxin/furan congener 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ................................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................... octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................................................................................ 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................................................................................ Octachlorodibenzofuran ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.0003 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.0003 TABLE 7 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—CALIBRATION AND ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS If you monitor this parameter . . . Then your accuracy requirements are . . . And your inspection/calibration frequency requirements are . . . 1. Temperature (non-cryogenic temperature ranges). ±1 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) whichever is greater. ±2.5 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) whichever is greater. ±2 percent of the normal range of flow ........... Every 12 months. 2. Temperature ranges). (cryogenic temperature 3. Liquid flow rate ............................................... sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Gas flow rate .................................................. ±5 percent of the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per minute, whichever is greater. 5. pH or caustic strength .................................... ±0.2 pH units .................................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Every 12 months. a. Every 12 months. b. You must select a measurement location where swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances at the point of measurement do not exist. a. Every 12 months. b. Check all mechanical connections for leakage at least annually. c. At least annually, conduct a visual inspection of all components of the flow CPMS for physical and operational integrity and all electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if your flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant flow sensor. Every 8 hours of process operation check the pH or caustic strength meter’s calibration on at least two points. E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22947 TABLE 7 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—CALIBRATION AND ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS—Continued If you monitor this parameter . . . Then your accuracy requirements are . . . And your inspection/calibration frequency requirements are . . . 6. Conductivity .................................................... 7. Mass flow rate ................................................ 8. Pressure ......................................................... ±5 percent of normal range ............................. ±5 percent of normal range ............................. ±5 percent or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column) whichever is greater. Every 12 months. Every 12 months. a. Calibration is required every 12 months. b. Check all mechanical connections for leakage at least annually. c. At least annually perform a visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion if CPMS is not equipped with a redundant pressure sensor. TABLE 8 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR PROCESS VENTS For each control device used to meet the emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the following pollutant . . . 1. Total hydrocarbons ........................................ 2. Total organic HAP ......................................... 3. Vinyl chloride ................................................. 4. Hydrogen chloride ......................................... 5. Dioxin/furan ................................................... 6. Any pollutant from a continuous, batch, or combination of continuous and batch process vent(s). You must . . . Using . . . a. Measure the total hydrocarbon concentration at the outlet of the final control device or in the stack. a. Measure the total organic HAP concentration at the outlet of the final control device or in the stack. Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 7. Conduct each test run for a minimum of 1 hour. i. Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 and ASTM D6420–99.a Conduct each test run for a minimum of 1 hour. ii. Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and ASTM D6348–03.a Conduct each test run for a minimum of 1 hour. Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. Conduct each test run for a minimum of 1 hour. i. Method 26 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 8, collect 60 dry standard liters of gas per test run; or ii. Method 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, collect 1 dry standard cubic meter of gas per test run. Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 and collect 5 dry standard cubic meters of gas per test run. a. Measure the vinyl chloride concentration at the outlet of the final control device or in the stack. a. Measure hydrogen chloride concentrations at the outlet of the final control device or in the stack. a. Measure dioxin/furan concentrations on a toxic equivalency basis (and report total mass per isomer) at the outlet of the final control device or in the stack. a. Select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. b. Determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis and correct concentrations the specified percent oxygen in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. d. Measure gas moisture content .................... a Incorporated Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 using the same sampling site and time as HAP samples. Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. by reference, see § 63.14. TABLE 9 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING SAMPLING OF STRIPPED RESIN AND PROCESS WASTEWATER Collect samples according to the following schedule . . . For the following emission points and types of processes . . . sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES For demonstrating . . . Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP . . . Vinyl chloride . . . Each stripped resin stream 1. Initial compliance ....................... a. Continuous ............................... b. Batch ........................................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. 1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM Every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. 1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period. 17APR2 22948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING SAMPLING OF STRIPPED RESIN AND PROCESS WASTEWATER—Continued Collect samples according to the following schedule . . . For the following emission points and types of processes . . . For demonstrating . . . 2. Continuous compliance ............. a. Continuous ............................... b. Batch ........................................ Vinyl chloride . . . Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP . . . On a daily basis, 1 grab sample every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. On a daily basis, 1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period. On a monthly basis, 1 grab sample every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. On a monthly basis, 1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period. Each process wastewater stream 3. Initial compliance ....................... 4. Continuous compliance ............. N/A ................................................ N/A ................................................ 1 grab sample ............................... 1 grab sample per month ............. 1 grab sample. 1 grab sample per month. TABLE 10 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—HAP SUBJECT TO THE RESIN AND PROCESS WASTEWATER PROVISIONS AT NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES CAS No. HAP Analyte category 107211 ................... 67561 ..................... 75070 ..................... 50000 ..................... 51285 ..................... 98862 ..................... 117817 ................... 123319 ................... 108952 ................... 79345 ..................... 106990 ................... 540841 ................... 71432 ..................... 108907 ................... 67663 ..................... 126998 ................... 98828 ..................... 75003 ..................... 100414 ................... 107062 ................... 75343 ..................... 74873 ..................... 75092 ..................... 110543 ................... 108883 ................... 71556/79005 .......... 108054 ................... 593602 ................... 75014 ..................... Ethylene glycol ................................................... Methanol ............................................................. Acetaldehyde ...................................................... Formaldehyde .................................................... 2,4-dinitrophenol ................................................. Acetophenone .................................................... Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) ................... Hydroquinone ..................................................... Phenol ................................................................ 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ................................... 1,3-butadiene ..................................................... 2,2,4-trimethylpentane ........................................ Benzene ............................................................. Chlorobenzene ................................................... Chloroform .......................................................... Chloroprene ........................................................ Cumene .............................................................. Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) ............................ Ethylbenzene ...................................................... Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) ........... Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) ........ Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) ....................... Methylene chloride ............................................. n-Hexane ............................................................ Toluene .............................................................. Trichloroethane .................................................. Vinyl acetate ....................................................... Vinyl bromide ..................................................... Vinyl chloride ...................................................... Alcohol ................................................................ Alcohol ................................................................ Aldehyde ............................................................ Aldehyde ............................................................ SVOC ................................................................. SVOC ................................................................. SVOC ................................................................. SVOC ................................................................. SVOC ................................................................. VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... 75354 ..................... 1330207 ................. Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene) ........ Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) ........................ VOC .................................................................... VOC .................................................................... a Incorporated Test method by reference, see § 63.14. [FR Doc. 2012–6421 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17APR2.SGM 17APR2 SW–846–8015C.a SW–846–8015C.a SW–846–8315A.a SW–846–8315A.a SW–846–8270D.a SW–846–8270D.a SW–846–8270D.a SW–846–8270D.a SW–846–8270D.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a Method 107 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B. SW–846–8260B.a SW–846–8260B.a

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22848-22948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6421]

[[Page 22847]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 74

April 17, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers Production; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 22848]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037; FRL-9636-2]
RIN 2060-AN33

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
Production. The final rules establish emission standards that apply at
all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, for
hazardous air pollutants from polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production located at major and area sources. The final rules include
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission standards, including monitoring provisions and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.

DATES: The final rules are effective on April 17, 2012. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4607; Fax
number: (919) 541-0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CDD/CDF chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
DCS distributed control system
dscm dry standard cubic meter
EDC ethylene dichloride
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technologies or management
practices
HMW high molecular weight
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrogen chloride
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
LDAR leak detection and repair
LMW low molecular weight
LOQ limit of quantitation
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDL method detection levels
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NOX nitrogen oxide
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
POD point of determination
POG point of generation
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PQL practical quantitation limit
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
PVCPU PVC production process unit
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDL representative method detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RL reporting limit
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TEQ toxic equivalent
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VACO vinyl acetate copolymer
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
WWW World Wide Web

Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
A. What is the statutory authority for the final PVC rules?
B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA's Response
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Subcategories
C. Emission Standards
D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and
Reporting
E. Area Source Requirements
F. New and Revised Definitions
IV. Summary of the Final Rules
A. What is the affected source?
B. When must I comply with the major and area source standards?
C. What is the relationship between the final rule for major
sources and the existing 40 CFR part 61, subpart F standards?
D. Are there subcategories for major sources?
E. What emission standards must I meet for major sources?
F. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements
for major sources?
G. What are the performance testing requirements for batch
process operations at major sources?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements at major sources?
I. What are the requirements for area sources?
J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?
V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule
A. Affected Source
B. Overlapping Rules
C. Pollutants Regulated
D. Subcategories
E. MACT Floor Calculation
F. Emission Source Requirements
G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and
Reporting
H. Area Sources
I. Definitions
J. Cost and Emission Impacts
K. Economic Impacts
L. Affirmative Defense
M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses

[[Page 22849]]

VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rule
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy
impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The final rules establish national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for polyvinyl chloride and copolymer (PVC)
production. The regulated categories and entities potentially affected
by these standards include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS \a\ Code potentially regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyvinyl chloride resins 325211 Facilities that
manufacturing. polymerize vinyl
chloride monomer to
produce polyvinyl
chloride and/or
copolymers products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility, company, business,
organization, etc., is affected by this action, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers Production) and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources).
A polyvinyl chloride and copolymer production facility is not
subject to either subpart if it is a research and development facility,
as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this final action to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is
available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 18, 2012.
Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment (including any public hearing) can be raised during
judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds
for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the contact listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office (Mail Code
2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

A. What is the statutory authority for the final PVC rules?

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to establish NESHAP for
source categories and subcategories of both major and area sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are listed for regulation under CAA
section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. An area source is a HAP-emitting stationary source
that is not a major source.
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources, based on
performance of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The
MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as
the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12
percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions
information) or the best-performing five sources for source categories
or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A)
and (B)). This minimum level of stringency is called the MACT floor.
For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the
control level achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more
stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When considering
beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account
costs, energy and non-air

[[Page 22850]]

quality health and environmental impacts when doing so.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate standards or
requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of generally
available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such
sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' Additional
information on generally available control technology (GACT) is found
in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228,
December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA's Response

On July 10, 2002, the EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and existing
PVC production facilities that are located at major sources in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart J (67 FR 45886, July 10, 2002) (referred to as the
``part 63 NESHAP''). In that rulemaking, the EPA determined that
compliance with the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,
subpart F) (referred to as the ``part 61 NESHAP'') reflected the
application of MACT; thus, satisfying CAA section 112(d), with the
exception of adding requirements for equipment leaks at new sources. In
the part 63 NESHAP, the EPA regulated vinyl chloride emissions as a
surrogate for all HAP emitted from PVC production. For equipment leaks,
the part 63 NESHAP required that new sources comply with 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 2 Standards.
In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (DC
Cir. 2004), the petitioners argued that the EPA failed to set emission
standards for all HAP emitted by PVC plants. The EPA had set emission
standards for vinyl chloride as a surrogate for the remaining HAP
because it was the predominant HAP used and emitted at PVC plants. The
Court ruled that the EPA did not adequately explain the basis for its
decision to use vinyl chloride as a surrogate for other HAP. The Court
``vacated and remanded [the rule in its entirety] to the agency for it
to reconsider or properly explain its methodology for regulating [HAP]
emitted in PVC production other than vinyl chloride by use of a
surrogate.'' 370 F.3d at 1243. This rule promulgates NESHAP for PVC
production at major sources in response to the remand and in accordance
with section 112 of the CAA.
On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2930), the EPA promulgated NESHAP for
new and existing PVC production area sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDDDDD. Subpart DDDDDD was based on GACT and required area sources to
meet the requirements in the existing part 61 NESHAP. The part 61
NESHAP requirements address only vinyl chloride emissions. In this
rulemaking, we are fulfilling our obligation under CAA section
112(d)(6) to review and revise, as necessary, the PVC production area
source standards. We coordinated our CAA 112(d)(6) review of the area
source standards with the development of major source MACT standards in
response to the Court remand.

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

The EPA received over 39 public comment letters on the proposed
rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted two public hearings to allow the
public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. After consideration of
public comments and new data received, the EPA is making several
changes to the standards. Following are the major changes to the
standards since the proposal. The rationale for these and other
significant changes can be found in section V of this preamble or in
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production: Summary of Public
Comments and Responses, in the PVC docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037).

A. Applicability

The definition of affected source was changed to clarify the
requirements for existing and new affected sources. In the proposed
rule, an affected source was defined as each individual PVC production
process unit (PVCPU) and a new affected source was a PVCPU for which
construction commenced on or after May 20, 2011, at a major or area
source. A PVCPU was defined to include all equipment connected by
shared piping, including equipment typically shared by multiple PVCPU,
such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment systems.
In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-
wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels,
heat exchange systems, wastewater, and process wastewater treatment
systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source
is defined as follows:
All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat
exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems
that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed at a
Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at an
existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to the rule
proposal but has undergone process changes to start producing PVC.
A reconstructed affected source.
As an example, if an existing PVC plant adds a new PVCPU, the new
PVCPU and the associated emission control devices and wastewater
treatment processes would be subject to the existing source NESHAP
limits, unless it qualifies as a reconstructed source. A newly
constructed PVCPU would be subject to the new source requirements in
the final rules only if it was constructed at a Greenfield site or at a
site that had not previously produced PVC prior to the date of proposal
of this rule (May 20, 2011) or if it qualifies as a reconstructed
source.

B. Subcategories

At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. In the final
rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only
and PVC-combined. PVC-only process vents comprise process vent streams
that

[[Page 22851]]

originate solely from a PVCPU. PVC-combined process vents comprise
process vent streams that originate from a PVCPU and that are combined
or are co-controlled with process vent streams that originate from
other source categories such as ethylene dichloride (EDC) or vinyl
chloride monomer (VCM) production processes. The change to
subcategories was based on our review of comments, further review of
the originally submitted test data, and our review of additional data
submitted by industry after proposal. We determined that there are
significant differences between the emission profiles of process vents
that originate solely from a PVCPU and the emission profiles of process
vents that originate from a PVCPU and are combined with process vents
from other source categories prior to control. Further discussion of
the differences between PVC-only and PVC-combined process vent streams
is provided in section V.D of this preamble, and data showing the
differences is provided in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the
docket.
A facility subject to the PVC-combined limits that no longer
combines vent streams from other source categories, or a facility that
is subject to the PVC-only limits that subsequently combines vent
streams from other source categories, is subject to the process change
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11896 of the final rule. Routine and
maintenance shutdowns that cause temporary cessation of the vent stream
flow from other source categories are not subject to the process change
requirements.
At proposal, we subcategorized stripped resins into three
subcategories: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin and (3) all other
resin. For the final rule, we subcategorized stripped resins into five
subcategories: (1) Suspension resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3)
suspension blending resin, (4) bulk resin and (5) copolymer resin. The
change to subcategories was made based on our review of comments and
additional data submitted by the industry (see section V.D of this
preamble for more discussion of our response to these and other public
comments) after proposal. We determined that there are significant
differences in the concentrations of vinyl chloride and organic HAP
that remain in the various types of resin following stripping due to
differing process equipment and raw materials that are used to produce
the varying types of resins, such that further subcategorization of
stripped resin was warranted.

C. Emission Standards

In the final rule, we revised the emission limits based on
additional data received and the additional subcategories for process
vents and stripped resins. The emission limit changes are discussed in
section V.E.2 of this preamble and documented in the technical
memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor
Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production
Source Category, which is available in the docket. We also made
revisions to the requirements for process wastewater, heat exchange
systems, equipment leaks and other emission sources as discussed below.
We considered all the data regarding the PVC source category
available to the agency in establishing the emission limits presented
in Tables 1 through 8 below for process vents, stripped resins, and
process wastewater. In reviewing those data, we found that the HAP
emitted from the PVC source category are organic HAP (including vinyl
chloride and chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans (CDD/CDF)) and
hydrogen chloride (HCl). We did not identify in the data any inorganic
HAP, metal HAP, or any acid gases other than HCl, which is also a
surrogate for chlorine gas. In setting limits for all HAP emitted at
PVC major sources, we established total hydrocarbons (THC) limits as a
surrogate for organic HAP from process vents, along with limits for HCl
as a surrogate for all acid gas HAP and chlorine gas, vinyl chloride,
and CDD/CDF. Although vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are organic HAP, we
established separate limits for these pollutants. Vinyl chloride is the
primary ingredient in PVC production and is present at all emission
points. Vinyl chloride, which is also an urban HAP, is already
regulated at PVC facilities under the part 61 NESHAP. However, we are
not setting vinyl chloride limits as a surrogate for other HAP. The
CDD/CDF emissions are generated from combustion control of organic HAP
from process vents (as is HCl), and CDD/CDF are emitted at levels that
are orders of magnitude lower than other organic HAP, thus requiring a
separate test method to be detected and measured.
We identified in the data for stripped resins and process
wastewater only organic HAP (including vinyl chloride). For these
emission sources, we are establishing total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limits. We did not establish a THC limit for stripped resins and
process wastewater because the data were derived from liquid samples
(as opposed to gaseous samples for process vents), and no test method
is available for testing THC in liquid samples.
For heat exchange systems and equipment leaks, we are setting
requirements for leak detection and repair (LDAR). For heat exchange
systems, we are setting a total strippable volatile organic compounds
(VOC) leak action level and an alternative vinyl chloride leak action
level because if either of these pollutants is detected in the cooling
water or in the stripping gas, then repair of the leak will be required
and will control all HAP. For equipment leaks, we are setting only a
VOC leak action level because the only currently EPA approved leak
detection method is EPA Method 21, which measures VOC. Like heat
exchange systems, if the VOC leak is detected, then repair of the leak
will be required and result in control of all HAP. (See preamble
section V.C for further discussion regarding the pollutants regulated.)
1. Process Vents
In the proposed and final rule, we calculated the MACT floor
emission levels for process vents accounting for variability using a
99-percent upper predictive limit (UPL) calculation. In the final rule,
we used a 99-percent UPL calculation, but we changed the value for the
number of samples used in the compliance average (the m value) in the
UPL calculation for THC to 3 instead of 30 to reflect the actual number
of THC test runs that will comprise the compliance average.
Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble present the final process vent
emission limits for existing sources and new sources, respectively,
compared to the proposed limits.

[[Page 22852]]

Table 1--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Process Vents at Existing Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits \a\
Pollutant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride....................... 0.32 ppmv.............. 6.0 ppmv............... 1.1 ppmv.
Hydrogen chloride.................... 150 ppmv............... 78 ppmv................ 380 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons (THC)............. 2.0 ppmv as propane \c\ 9.7 ppmv as propane.... 4.2 ppmv as propane.
Total organic HAP \b\................ 12 ppmv................ 56 ppmv................ 9.8 ppmv.
Dioxin/furans (TEQ).................. 0.023 ng/dscm.......... 0.038 ng/dscm.......... 0.051 ng/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2). ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter at 3-percent O2.
\b\ Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.
\c\ Proposed THC compliance limit.

Table 2--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Process Vents at New Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits \a\
Pollutant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride....................... 3.2 ppbv............... 0.56 ppmv.............. 0.56 ppmv.
Hydrogen chloride.................... 0.17 ppmv.............. 0.17 ppmv.............. 1.4 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons (THC)............. 2.0 ppmv as propane \c\ 7.0 ppmv as propane.... 2.3 ppmv as propane.
Total organic HAP \b\................ 0.22 ppmv.............. 5.5 ppmv............... 5.5 ppmv.
Dioxin/furans (TEQ).................. 0.0087 ng/dscm......... 0.038 ng/dscm.......... 0.034 ng/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O2. ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at
3-percent O2.
\b\ Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.
\c\ Proposed THC compliance limit.

2. Equipment Leaks
In the proposed rule, we required reciprocating pumps,
reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators to be equipped
with double seals or the equivalent. In the final rule, we are also
allowing affected sources to comply with the requirements for
reciprocating pumps, reciprocating and rotating compressors and
agitators by complying with the requirements for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU. If double mechanical seals, or the equivalent, are not
used, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU requires pumps to be monitored monthly
at a leak definition of 1,000 parts per million (ppm); agitators must
be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 10,000 ppm, and
compressors must either be leakless (i.e., operating with an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above background) or be equipped with a
system to capture and transport leaks through a closed vent system to a
control device.
3. Stripped Resin
In the proposed rule, we calculated concentration values for HAP in
the dispersion resin subcategory using the reported mass-based values
(for HAP present in the resin) and the dispersion resin production for
each facility. The concentration values were then used to calculate the
MACT floor emission limits for dispersion resin. For the final rule, we
used the original vinyl chloride and other organic HAP concentration
values, as measured and analyzed, as the basis for setting the MACT
floors. This change is consistent with how we set the MACT floors for
the other resin subcategories and provides a more accurate basis for
setting concentration-based limits.
At proposal, vinyl chloride and total HAP limits for stripped
resins were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation based on 30
days of vinyl chloride and other HAP data from all facilities that
conducted resin sampling and analysis as part of our August 21, 2009,
CAA section 114 survey and testing request for the PVC industry. The
vinyl chloride stripped resin limits were calculated using data
obtained from resin sampling using EPA SW-846 Method 8260B.
For the final rule, vinyl chloride limits for stripped resins were
calculated based on 4 years of vinyl chloride compliance data,
submitted by the PVC industry after proposal, that were obtained by
resin sampling using EPA Method 107. This revision was made because EPA
Method 107 is a better measure than EPA SW-846 Method 8260B of the
concentration of vinyl chloride in PVC resin, as explained further in
section V.E of this preamble. Furthermore, because of the significantly
larger dataset of vinyl chloride concentrations measured using EPA
Method 107, we calculated the final stripped resin vinyl chloride
limits using a percentile for the top 5 sources. Percentiles represent
the specified slice of the sample data and unlike confidence and
prediction intervals, they are distribution-free.
In the proposed rule, the total HAP limits for the stripped resin
subcategories included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the
final rule, vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from the total
organic HAP limit calculations, resulting in total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limits for all subcategories of stripped resin. This change
was made because we have established separate limits for vinyl chloride
in stripped resin and we are requiring compliance with those limits
using EPA Method 107. The total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits
are based on concentration data for all measured organic HAP, excluding
vinyl chloride, collected using EPA SW-846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D
and 8315A. Additional discussion is provided in section V.D of this
preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in the
docket.
At proposal, variability in the total HAP limits was assessed using
a 99-percent UPL calculation where the m value was set at 30 to
represent 30 single daily total HAP values. For the final rule,
variability was assessed in the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
limits using the 99-percent UPL calculation and an m value of 1 to
represent monthly compliance, as

[[Page 22853]]

explained further in section V of this preamble.
For the final rule, we excluded information from several facilities
from the MACT floor analysis due to the use of inconsistent test
methods, inaccurate or questionable method detection levels (MDL), or
lack of documentation on the sampling and analysis results. The changes
made to the MACT floor calculations are discussed in section V.E.2 of
this preamble.
Tables 3 through 7 of this preamble present the proposed and final
stripped resin emission limits for bulk resin, dispersion resin,
suspension resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin,
respectively, at existing and new sources.

Table 3--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Bulk Resin at Existing and New Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk resin
---------------------------------
Source Pollutant Proposed Final emission
emission limits limits (ppmw)
(ppmw) \a\ \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing.............................. Vinyl Chloride........................ 7.1 7.1
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP.. 170 170
New................................... Vinyl Chloride........................ 7.1 7.1
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP.. 170 170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

Table 4--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Dispersion Stripped Resin at Existing and New
Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispersion resin
-------------------------------
Proposed
Source Pollutant emission Final emission
limits (ppmw) limits (ppmw)
\a\ \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing............................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 55 1300
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 110 240
New.................................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 41 480
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 58 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

Table 5--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Suspension Stripped Resin at Existing and New
Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension resin
--------------------------------
Proposed
Source Pollutant emission Final emission
limits (ppmw) limits (ppmw)
\a\ \b\ \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing............................... Vinyl Chloride........................ 0.48 37
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP.. 76 670
New.................................... Vinyl Chloride........................ 0.20 7.3
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP.. 42 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, suspension resin was included in the ``all other resins'' subcategory.
\b\ At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

Table 6--Emission Limits for Suspension Blending Stripped Resin at Existing and New Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension blending resin
-------------------------------
Proposed
Source Pollutant Emission Final emission
limits (ppmw) limits (ppmw)
\a\ \b\ \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing............................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 0.48 140
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 76 500
New.................................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 0.20 140
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 42 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, suspension blending resin was included in the ``all other resins'' subcategory.
\b\ At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

[[Page 22854]]

Table 7--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Copolymer Stripped Resin at Existing and New Major
Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copolymer resin
-------------------------------
Proposed
Source Pollutant emission Final emission
limits (ppmw) limits (ppmw)
\a\ \b\ \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing............................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 0.48 790
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 76 1,900
New.................................... Vinyl Chloride......................... 0.20 790
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP... 42 1,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, copolymer resins were included in the ``all other resins'' subcategory.
\b\ At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

4. Wastewater
In the proposed rule, the wastewater limits applied to both process
wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The final rule contains vinyl
chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for process
wastewater, and requires compliance with the National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (Hazardous Organic NESHAP or
HON) maintenance wastewater provisions for maintenance wastewater at
affected sources. For the proposed rule, the wastewater vinyl chloride
concentration limits were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation
with an m value of 1 to represent monthly compliance. The limits were
calculated based on data reported in survey responses from companies
responding to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114. For the final rule,
we recalculated the monthly vinyl chloride concentration limits for
process wastewater using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described
above, but the limits were calculated based on 1 year of daily sampling
data provided by the industry after proposal.
In the proposed rule, total HAP emission limits were based on a
beyond-the-floor option of complying with the HON flow rate and
concentration limits for wastewater. The proposed total HAP limits also
included vinyl chloride. For the final rule, we calculated a total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit for process wastewater
instead of a total HAP limit, with compliance demonstrated on a monthly
basis. The total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for process
wastewater are based on information and data provided by industry in
response to the August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey, corrections to
those data provided by the PVC industry during the public comment
period, and supplemental resin sampling data provided during the public
comment period by one PVC manufacturer.
Table 8 of this preamble presents the proposed and final emission
limits for process wastewater at existing and new sources.

Table 8--Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Process Wastewater at Existing and New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final emission
Source Pollutant Proposed emission limits (ppmw) limits (ppmw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing......................... Vinyl Chloride............. Less than 10 ppmw for streams 6.8
that do not require treatment,
or 0.11 ppmw for streams that
require treatment \a\.
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Less than 1,000 ppmw or less 110
Organic HAP. than 10 liters per minute
annual average flow rate for
streams that do not require
treatment, or the provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart G for
streams that require treatment
\b\.
New.............................. Vinyl Chloride............. Less than 10 ppmw for streams 0.28
that do not require treatment,
or 0.0060 ppmw for streams that
require treatment \a\.
Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Less than 1,000 ppmw or less 0.018
Organic HAP. than 10 liters per minute
annual average flow rate for
streams that do not require
treatment, or the provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart G for
streams that require treatment
\b\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At proposal, if a wastewater stream contained a vinyl chloride concentration greater than 10 ppmw at the
point of generation, then treatment was required.
\b\ At proposal, if a wastewater stream contained a HAP concentration (based on HAP listed in Table 9 to part
63, subpart G) less than 1,000 ppmw or an annual average flow rate less than 10 liters per minute, then
treatment was not required.

5. Heat Exchange Systems
We proposed that affected sources would have the option of using
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Modified El Paso
Method or EPA SW-846 Method 8021B to monitor for leaks of VOC in their
heat exchange system cooling water. For new affected sources, we
proposed a total strippable VOC leak action level of 2.3 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) (as methane) in the stripping gas or 30 parts
per billion by weight (ppbw) in the cooling water, with monitoring
every 12 hours. For existing affected sources, we proposed a total
strippable VOC leak action level of 2.9 ppmv (as methane) in the
stripping gas or 38 ppbw in the cooling water, with monthly monitoring.
Our proposed delay of repair action levels for new and existing sources
were a total strippable VOC leak action level of 29 ppmv (as methane)
in the stripping gas or 380 ppbw in the cooling water.
In the final rule, we are requiring monthly cooling water
monitoring for

[[Page 22855]]

either total strippable VOC or for vinyl chloride. Total strippable VOC
monitoring must be done using either the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method
or EPA Method 624, and vinyl chloride monitoring must be done using EPA
Method 107, as it is the established method for the PVC industry to
analyze vinyl chloride concentrations in water samples. The leak action
levels for new and existing sources are the same in the final rule.
Furthermore, the leak action levels and delay of repair action levels
are the same whether facilities monitor for strippable VOC or for vinyl
chloride in the cooling water and are 50 ppbw and 500 ppbw,
respectively. For total strippable VOC monitoring using the TCEQ
Modified El Paso Method, the leak action level is 3.9 ppmv in the
stripping gas and the delay of repair action level is 39 ppmv. Table 9
of this preamble presents the proposed and final standards for heat
exchange systems at existing and new sources.

Table 9--Comparison of Proposed and Final Standards for Heat Exchange Systems at Existing and New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed leak action Proposed monitoring Final leak action
Source Pollutant level frequency level Final monitoring frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing................... Total strippable VOC. 38 ppbw in cooling Monthly................... 50 ppbw in cooling Monthly.
water or 2.9 ppmv in water or 3.9 ppmv in
stripping gas. stripping gas.
Vinyl chloride....... NA................... NA........................ 50 ppbw in cooling Monthly.
water.
New........................ Total strippable VOC. 30 ppbw in cooling Every 12 hours............ 50 ppbw in cooling Monthly.
water or 2.3 ppmv in water or 3.9 ppmv in
stripping gas. stripping gas.
Vinyl chloride....... NA................... NA........................ 50 ppbw in cooling Monthly.
water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--not applicable.

We have clarified in the final rule that heat exchange systems that
are in HAP service and that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of
greater than 10 gallons per minute are required to monitor for leaks.
6. Other Emission Sources
In addition to proposing requirements for reactor opening losses in
the proposed rule, we solicited comment and additional information on
emissions, controls and costs of controls for gasholders. Based on our
review of comments, and analysis of methods to control emissions from
gasholders, the final rule requires that emissions from gasholder vents
be routed back into the process or vented through a closed vent system
to a control device. Affected sources must also install floating
objects on gasholder water seals to reduce emissions of vinyl chloride
and other HAP from those seals.

D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and Reporting

The final rule contains several changes to the compliance,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. Process Vents
At proposal, affected sources were required to conduct performance
tests for process vents on an annual basis. In the final rule,
performance tests must be conducted once every 5 years since the
continuous parametric monitoring requirements ensure compliance on a
continuous basis.
In the final rule, we have established two subcategories for
process vents: PVC-only and PVC combined. As at proposal, the final
rule also requires that all gaseous streams from process vents must be
routed into a closed vent system and sent to a control device in order
to meet the PVC-only or PVC-combined emission limits. We are also
requiring that each process vent stream must be characterized by
developing an emission profile. This is to ensure that process vent
streams are serving a valid process purpose and are not being diluted
prior to control. We expect facilities to already have inventories and
previous test results available to develop their emissions profile. All
of the facilities that provided information in response to the August
21, 2009, PVC CAA section 114 survey, developed emission profiles.
Additionally, we are allowing the emissions profile to be based on
engineering assessment or measurement. Because of these reasons, we do
not anticipate additional burden from this requirement. We have also
clarified the definitions for process vent, continuous process vent,
batch process vent and have added a definition for miscellaneous vent.
These revised and new definitions are described in more detail in
section V.I of this preamble.
In the proposed rule, new affected sources were required to install
and operate CDD/CDF continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) after
the promulgation of a performance specification. New sources were also
required to install and operate HCl CEMS. The requirements to install
and operate CDD/CDF CEMS and HCl CEMS have been removed as requirements
since the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements
are sufficient but both CEMS remain available as options to existing
and new affected sources when the specifications are promulgated.
2. Stripped Resins
In the proposed rule, affected sources were required to demonstrate
compliance with the vinyl chloride limits for stripped resin using EPA
SW-846 Method 8260B. In the final rule, affected sources must
demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride stripped resin limit
using EPA Method 107 because it is a better measure of the
concentration of vinyl chloride in resin and was specifically developed
to be used to measure vinyl chloride concentration in stripped PVC
resins. The final rule requires affected sources to demonstrate
compliance with a total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit using the
combination of four EPA SW-846 Methods: 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A.
In the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous
parametric monitoring of resin strippers. Our rationale for this is
explained in detail in section V.F.3 of this preamble.
3. Wastewater
The final rule contains separate requirements for process
wastewater and maintenance wastewater. For process wastewater, we
removed the requirement that a wastewater stream must be treated and
meet certain HON requirements if its flow rate is greater than or equal
to 10 liters per minute or contains a total HAP concentration greater
than 1,000 parts per million by

[[Page 22856]]

weight (ppmw). Instead, affected sources must initially test all
untreated process wastewater streams and meet the vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits in the final rule prior to
discharge. We have clarified the requirements for process wastewater
including the requirements for determining which streams require
treatment to meet the process wastewater emission limits. Consequently,
we have removed the terms ``point of generation'' and ``point of
determination'' from the final rule.
In the proposed rule, affected sources were required to determine
the concentration of vinyl chloride and total HAP on a monthly basis
for streams that did not require treatment to ensure that their HAP
concentrations remained below the applicability criteria. For the final
rule, affected sources are required to determine the concentration of
vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP on an annual
basis for streams that do not require treatment.
In the final rule, we have added a requirement that affected
sources must comply with the HON maintenance wastewater compliance
requirements of 40 CFR 63.105 of subpart F.
In the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous
parametric monitoring of wastewater steam strippers. Our rationale for
this is explained in detail in section V of this preamble.
4. Heat Exchange Systems
We proposed that affected sources would have the option of using
the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA SW-846 Method 8021B to monitor
for leaks of VOC in their heat exchange system cooling water. In the
final rule, we have retained the option to monitor total strippable VOC
in the stripping gas using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, but for
cooling water monitoring, we are requiring EPA Method 624. The final
rule also includes an option for facilities to monitor their cooling
water for vinyl chloride using EPA Method 107. The final rule requires
the same leak action level for both new and existing sources, depending
on which monitoring method is used.
5. Other Emission Sources
In the final rule, we are requiring emissions from gasholder vents
be routed back into the process or vented through a closed vent system
to a control device meeting the compliance requirements for process
vents. To minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we
are also requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of water
seals. Affected sources must establish operating procedures for use of
floating devices in gasholders. These operating procedures must
describe how the floating objects will be maintained to ensure a
reduction in fugitive emissions from the gasholder's water seal.

E. Area Source Requirements

We proposed GACT standards for PVC area sources based on the
proposed MACT standards for major sources. For the final rule, we have
updated our analysis of area source GACT, considering comments
received, including our analysis of cost considerations. Our revised
GACT analysis assesses each PVC emission point (e.g., process vents,
stripped resin, equipment leaks, etc.) individually, for both existing
and new sources, to determine the appropriate level of control
considering cost and emission reduction. The GACT analysis was
conducted for the same subcategories as major sources. A discussion of
the GACT analysis is presented in section V.H of this preamble.
We have determined emission limits based on the control level that
area sources are currently meeting to be GACT for existing and new area
sources for PVC-only process vents, PVC-combined process vents, bulk
resin, suspension resin, and process and maintenance wastewater. For
other resin subcategories (i.e., dispersion, suspension blending and
copolymer), no existing area source produces these resins. For the
dispersion subcategory, we determined GACT based on the least-
controlled major source control level at existing major sources in that
subcategory. GACT for the suspension blending and copolymer
subcategories is based on the existing major source control levels for
the single facility in each subcategory from which we determined the
MACT floors. For all other emission points, i.e., equipment leaks, heat
exchange systems and other emission sources, we have determined that
GACT should be the same work practice standards being adopted as MACT
for major sources. We are also adopting the same testing and monitoring
requirements that apply to major sources. Major source requirements are
discussed in section IV of this preamble.

F. New and Revised Definitions

Several definitions were revised and added in the final rule as a
result of new subcategories and other changes. The following
definitions have been revised since the proposal: Batch process vent,
conservation vent, continuous process vent, grade, in HAP service,
polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production
process unit or PVCPU, polyvinyl chloride copolymer, pressure relief
device (PRD), process vent, solution process, surge control vessel,
treatment process, type of resin and wastewater.
The following definitions have been added in the final rule:
Gasholder, heat exchanger exit line, maintenance wastewater,
miscellaneous vent, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer, process wastewater,
process wastewater treatment system, PVC-combined process vent, PVC-
only process vent, suspension blending process, table 10 HAP, total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and wastewater stream. The rationale for
revising and adding the definitions is provided in section V.I of this
preamble.

IV. Summary of the Final Rules

A. What is the affected source?

The final rules apply to owners or operators of PVCPU located at
both major source and area sources of HAP emissions, as defined in 40
CFR 63.2. The subparts apply to each affected source, where the
affected source is the facility wide collection of PVCPU, storage
tanks, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and
process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing
PVC. A new affected source is one for which construction commenced
after May 20, 2011, at a Greenfield facility or at an existing facility
that did not previously produce PVC prior to May 20, 2011. If
components of an existing affected source are replaced, such that the
replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and
the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then the existing
source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant
standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must
comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon initial
startup of the reconstructed source, or by April 17, 2012, whichever is
later.
A PVCPU is defined as a collection of process components assembled
and connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw
materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl
chloride copolymers. The collection of process components includes
polymerization reactors, resin stripping operations, resin blend tanks,
resin centrifuges, resin dryers, resin product separators, recovery
devices, reactant and raw material charge vessels and tanks, holding
tanks, mixing and weighing tanks, finished resin product

[[Page 22857]]

loading operations, connected ducts and piping, combustion, recovery,
or recapture devices or systems and equipment (i.e., all pumps,
compressors, agitators, PRD, sampling connection systems, open-ended
valves or lines, valves, connectors and instrumentation systems that
are associated with the PVCPU). A PVCPU does not include chemical
manufacturing process units, as defined in 40 CFR 63.101, which produce
VCM or other raw materials used in the production of PVC.

B. When must I comply with the major and area source standards?

Existing major affected sources are required to comply with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHHH and existing area affected sources are
required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD no later than
April 17, 2015. New major and area affected sources are required to
comply on April 17, 2012, or upon startup, whichever is later.

C. What is the relationship between this final rule for major sources
and the 40 CFR part 61, subpart F standards?

Affected sources are currently subject to requirements in the part
61 NESHAP. This final rule includes requirements that are at least as
stringent as the requirements in the part 61 NESHAP. Thus, once an
affected source is in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH,
the requirements of the part 61 NESHAP will no longer apply.

D. Are there subcategories for major sources?

The final rule contains two subcategories for process vents. The
process vent subcategories are based on whether the vent streams are
collected from: (1) Only PVC production processes (i.e., PVC-only
process vents) or (2) PVC production process and other non-PVC
production processes, such as VCM or EDC manufacturing (i.e., PVC-
combined process vents).
The final rule contains five subcategories for limits on the amount
of HAP remaining in resin following polymerization and stripping (i.e.,
the stripped resin). The stripped resin subcategories are based on the
type of resin produced, and include the following homopolymer resins:
(1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) suspension blending resin and
(4) suspension resin. A fifth subcategory is included in the final rule
for all copolymer resins.
See section V.D of this preamble for more discussion on
subcategories.

E. What emission standards must I meet for major sources?

This rule establishes requirements for affected sources located at
or part of a major source of HAP emissions. We explain our rationale
for the finalized standards in section V.E of this preamble.
1. Storage Vessels and Handling Operations
Under 40 CFR 63.11910 and Table 3 of the final rule, if you own or
operate a storage vessel at a new or existing affected source, we are
requiring that material stored with a maximum true vapor pressure of
greater than 11.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) be stored in
pressure vessels with no emissions to the atmosphere. During those
times when purging is required or when the pressure vessel is being
loaded, the purged stream or the emission stream during loading is
required to be routed to a closed vent system and control device. The
closed vent system and control device must meet the requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.11925 through 40 CFR 63.11950 of the final rule.
You are also required to equip all openings in the pressure vessel with
closure devices that are designed to operate with no detectable
emissions, as determined using procedures specified in 40 CFR
63.11910(c)(3) of the final rule.
For storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 40,000
gallons that store material with a maximum true vapor pressure greater
than or equal to 0.75 psia or storage vessels with a capacity greater
than or equal to 20,000 gallons (but less than 40,000 gallons) that
store materials with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or
equal to 4 psia, we are requiring compliance with one of two equivalent
compliance options. We are requiring that material be stored in either:
(1) A floating roof tank meeting the operating, inspection and
maintenance requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, or (2) a fixed
roof storage vessel that routes vent streams to a closed vent system
and control device (meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11925 through
40 CFR 63.11950 of the final rule) capable of reducing inlet VOC
emissions by 95 percent or greater.
We are requiring that all other storage vessels meet the operating,
inspection and maintenance requirements for fixed roof vessels of 40
CFR 63.11910(a) of the final rule or comply with either the controlled
fixed roof or floating roof requirements discussed previously. 40 CFR
63.11910(a)(1)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.11910(a)(3)(i) of the final rule
include requirements to equip each opening in the roof with a closure
device, and to perform initial and annual inspections and repair any
defects found within the specified time period. Defects include, but
are not limited to, visible cracks, holes, gaps or other open spaces in
the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the
closure device; broken, cracked or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets
on closure devices; and broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps
or other closure devices.
2. Equipment Leaks
In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, we are requiring that
existing and new affected sources comply with the LDAR program
requirements of the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 2 Standards, subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63. For valves in
gas and light liquid service, subpart UU specifies a leak definition of
500 ppm VOC and a monitoring frequency that is dependent upon the
number of leaking valves. Subpart UU also requires equipment
specifications to prevent leaks for other pieces of equipment. We are
requiring that a vinyl chloride monitoring system be operated for
detection of major leaks and identification of the general area of the
plant where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system is a
device that obtains air samples from one or more points continuously
and analyzes the samples with gas chromatography, infrared
spectrophotometry, flame ion detection or an equivalent or alternate
method.
In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, we are also requiring that,
in addition to operating with no detectable emissions, there be no
discharge to the atmosphere from any PRD on any equipment in HAP
service within the PVC affected source. We are requiring that, upon a
discharge to the atmosphere from the PRD, that the monitoring
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for pressure
releases from PRD be followed.
3. Heat Exchange Systems
In 40 CFR 63.11920 of the final rule, we are requiring that you
implement a LDAR program to detect leaks of HAP into cooling water. For
both new and existing sources, we are requiring monthly monitoring for
both closed loop and once-through heat exchange systems using either
the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, EPA Method 624 or EPA Method 107. The
leak action level is 50 ppbw of total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride
in the cooling water, or a leak action level of 3.9 ppmv in the
stripping gas. The delay of repair action

[[Page 22858]]

level for both new and existing sources is 500 ppbw of total strippable
VOC or vinyl chloride in the cooling water, or 39 ppmv of VOC in the
stripping gas. When a leak is identified, additional monitoring must be
performed to isolate the source of the leak. If the total strippable
VOC or vinyl chloride concentration remains below the applicable leak
action level throughout the period of additional monitoring, then
repairs are not required; otherwise, repairs must be completed within
45 days of identifying the leak. Repairs may be delayed if the
concentration of total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride in the cooling
water remains below the delay of repair action level and either: (1) It
is technically infeasible to repair the leak without a shutdown, or (2)
the necessary equipment, parts or personnel are not available.
4. Process Vents
In 40 CFR 63.11925 of the final rule, we are requiring all process
vents be routed to a closed vent system and control device meeting the
emission standards in Table 10 of this preamble. All process vents must
meet the emission standards, including continuous process vents, batch
process vents and miscellaneous vents.
We are requiring the emission limitations presented in Table 10 of
this preamble for two subcategories of process vents at major sources:
(1) PVC-only process vents and (2) PVC-combined process vents. These
emission limits apply at all times.

Table 10--Emission Limits for Process Vents at Existing and New Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limitations \a\
Subcategory Pollutant -------------------------------------------------
Existing sources New sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents............... Vinyl chloride......... 6.0 ppmv............... 0.56 ppmv.
Hydrogen chloride...... 78 ppmv................ 0.17 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons 9.7 ppmv as propane.... 7.0 ppmv as propane.
(THC) \b\.
Total organic HAP \b\.. 56 ppmv................ 5.5 ppmv.
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ).... 0.038 ng/dscm.......... 0.038 ng/dscm.
PVC-combined process vents
Vinyl chloride......... 1.1 ppmv............... 0.56 ppmv.
Hydrogen chloride...... 380 ppmv............... 1.4 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons 4.2 ppmv as propane.... 2.3 ppmv as propane.
(THC) \b\.
Total organic HAP \b\.. 9.8 ppmv............... 5.5 ppmv.
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ).... 0.051 ng/dscm.......... 0.034 ng/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ppbv = parts per billion by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2). ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-
percent O2. ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2.
\b\ Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC.

5. Other Emission Sources
Other emission sources include reactor and other component opening
losses and gasholders. When reactors or other components (including
pre-polymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resin) are
opened for cleaning, we are requiring in 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final
rule that emissions be minimized prior to opening. We are requiring
that emissions from opening a polymerization reactor must not exceed
0.04 pound vinyl chloride/ton of polyvinyl chloride product where the
product means the gross product of pre-polymerization and post-
polymerization. We are requiring emissions from opening of process
components for any reason be minimized by reducing the volume of vinyl
chloride to an amount that occupies a volume of no more than 2.0
percent of the component's containment volume or 25 gallons, whichever
is larger, at standard temperature and pressure. Any vinyl chloride
emissions resulting from opening equipment must be ducted through a
closed vent system to a control device meeting the process vent limits
of the final rule. The outlet of the control device must meet the
emission limitations for process vents discussed in section IV.E.4 of
this preamble.
In 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule, we are requiring that
emissions from gasholders must either be routed back into the process
or be vented to a closed vent system and control device from which the
exhaust gases do not exceed the process vent limits. To minimize
fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we are also requiring
the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal. Each
gasholder must operate with one or more types of objects installed on
the surface of the water seal to reduce emissions from those seals,
including floating balls, hollow floating disks, an oil layer and/or
floating mats.
6. Stripped Resin
In 40 CFR 63.11960 of the final rule, we are setting emission
limits for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for
five subcategories of stripped resins, as presented in Tables 11 and 12
of this preamble. The limits were developed for new and existing
affected sources, based on the type of resin produced. Subcategories
for homopolymer resins are: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3)
suspension blending resin and (4) suspension resin. A fifth subcategory
is included in the final rule for copolymer resin. These emission
limits would apply at all times.

Table 11--Limits for Stripped Resins at Existing Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits (ppmw)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homopolymer resins
Pollutant ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copolymer
Dispersion Suspension Suspension resin
Bulk resin resin resin blending resin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride................. 7.1 1,300 37 140 790

[[Page 22859]]

Total non-vinyl chloride 170 240 670 500 1,900
organic HAP...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12--Limits for Stripped Resins at New Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits (ppmw)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homopolymer resins
Pollutant ------------------------------------------------------------------ Copolymer
Dispersion Suspension Suspension resin
Bulk resin resin resin blending resin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride................ 7.1 480 7.3 140 790
Total non-vinyl chloride 170 66 15 500 1,900
organic HAP..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Wastewater
In 40 CFR 63.11965 of the final rule, we are requiring process
wastewater streams at existing sources to meet emission limits of 6.8
ppmw for vinyl chloride and 110 ppmw for total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP before being exposed to the atmosphere, discharged from the
affected source or discharged from the affected source untreated as
wastewater. Process wastewater streams at new sources are required to
meet emission limits of 0.28 ppmw for vinyl chloride and 0.018 ppmw for
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP before being exposed to the
atmosphere, discharged from the affected source or discharged from the
affected source untreated as wastewater. Pollutant concentrations in
each process wastewater stream at existing and new sources must be
measured immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process
component, before being exposed to the atmosphere and before mixing
with any other wastewater stream.
The final rule contains separate requirements for maintenance
wastewater. Maintenance wastewater must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
63.105.

F. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
major sources?

In 40 CFR 63.11896 of the final rule, we are requiring that, if you
make a process change to an existing affected source that does not meet
the criteria to become a reconstructed affected source in 40 CFR
63.11870(e) of the final rule, you must be in compliance for any added
or changed emission points by the compliance date for existing affected
sources. If the process change occurs after the compliance date for
existing sources, then the added or changed emissions point must be in
compliance upon startup. If the process change results in a change in
the characteristics of any emission point such that a different
emission standard or operating parameter limit applies, we are
requiring that you demonstrate that the changed emission point complies
with the applicable requirements for an existing affected source. You
must demonstrate compliance with any emission limits and establish
applicable operating limits by 180 days after the compliance date for
existing affected sources; if the startup of the changed emission point
occurs after the compliance date for existing affected sources, then
you must demonstrate compliance with any emission limits and establish
applicable operating limits by 180 days after the date of initial
startup of the changed emission point.
We are also requiring that, if you make a process change to a new
affected source, you demonstrate that any added emission points are in
compliance with the applicable standards for a new affected source by
startup of the changed emission point. You must also demonstrate
initial compliance with any emission limits and establish applicable
operating limits by 180 days after the date of initial startup of the
changed process unit.
If you make a process change that adds or changes emission points,
we are requiring that you demonstrate continuous compliance with your
emission standards and operating limits according to the procedures and
frequency in 40 CFR 63.11910 through 40 CFR 63.11980 of this final rule
and submit a notification report specified in 40 CFR 63.11985 of the
final rule.
A facility subject to the PVC-combined process vent limits that no
longer combines process vent streams from other source categories, or a
facility that is subject to the PVC-only process vent limits that
subsequently combines process vent streams from other source
categories, is subject to the process change requirements in 40 CFR
63.11896 of the final rule. Routine and maintenance shutdowns that
cause temporary cessation of the vent stream flow from other source
categories are not subject to the process change requirements.
1. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
storage vessels?
For each floating roof storage vessel, we are requiring that you
meet the operating, inspection, repair and maintenance requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. For each fixed roof storage tank venting
through a closed vent system to a control device achieving 95-percent
reduction in total HAP emissions, we are requiring that you meet the
requirements for closed vent systems and control devices in 40 CFR
63.11925 of the final rule and summarized in section IV.F.4 of this
preamble.
In 40 CFR 63.11910 of the final rule, we are also requiring that,
for each fixed roof tank, you install and maintain the tank with no
visible cracks, holes or other open spaces between roof section joints
or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall. We are
also requiring that you install closure devices that you secure in the
closed position except during periods when you need to have access to
the interior of the fixed roof tank. The closure device may be opened
during the period

[[Page 22860]]

needed to provide access. The fixed roof tank and its closure device
are required to be inspected initially and at least once per year. The
inspection requirements are not applicable to parts of the fixed roof
that are determined to be unsafe to inspect if you document and explain
why it is unsafe to inspect and develop a plan to conduct inspections
when the tank is not in service. A first attempt to repair defects must
be made no later than 5 calendar days after detection and repairs are
required to be completed no later than 45 days after detection, except
as specified in 40 CFR 63.11910(a)(4)(ii) of the final rule.
In 40 CFR 63.11910 of the final rule, for pressure vessels, we are
requiring that all potential leak interfaces in the pressure vessel be
monitored for leaks annually and repaired following the procedures of
40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule.
2. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
equipment leaks?
For each applicable piece of equipment (e.g., valves, connectors)
associated with your affected source, we are requiring that you meet
the LDAR requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. In 40 CFR 63.11915
of the final rule, you are required to install a release indicator on
each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and
duration of each pressure release and notify operators that a pressure
release has occurred.
3. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for heat
exchange systems?
We are requiring that, for each affected source, you must operate a
heat exchange system monitoring program, as specified in the final
rule. Under the compliance requirements for heat exchange systems in 40
CFR 63.11920 of the final rule, an affected source is required to
conduct sampling and analyses for either total strippable VOC using the
TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA Method 624, or for vinyl chloride
using EPA Method 107. Affected sources must monitor no less frequently
than monthly and fix any leaks detected. We are requiring different
sampling locations for once-through and closed loop heat exchange
systems, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11920 of the final rule. For once-
through systems only, you may monitor at the cooling tower return line
prior to exposure to the air or you may monitor the inlet water feed
line prior to any heat exchange. If multiple heat exchange systems use
the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water
source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the
monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange
systems that use that same water feed. For once-through systems, you
must monitor selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a system is covered by the
selected monitoring location. Monitoring of selected heat exchanger
exit lines is also a monitoring option for closed loop systems.
We are exempting a heat exchange system from the monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11920 if all heat exchangers within the heat
exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water
side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the
process side, the heat exchange system does not contain any heat
exchangers that are in HAP service, or the heat exchange system has a
maximum cooling water flow rate of 10 gallons per minute or less.
Identified leaks must be repaired as soon as practicable, but
within 45 days after identifying the leak. We are allowing delay of
repair as long as the total strippable VOC concentration is below 39
ppmv in the stripping gas or below 500 ppbw in the cooling water, or
the vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water is below 500 ppbw
and other criteria are met. Specifically, leaking heat exchanger
repairs may be delayed if the repair is technically infeasible without
a shutdown or the necessary equipment, parts or personnel are not
available. To delay repairs in either case, the total strippable VOC or
vinyl chloride concentration must initially be, and remain less than,
the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods during the
delay of repair.
4. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
process vents?
To demonstrate compliance for process vents, you are required to
meet the requirements of final 40 CFR 63.11930 for each closed vent
system that routes emissions from process vents to a control device.
You are required to meet the initial and continuous compliance
requirements for process vents specified in 40 CFR 63.11925 and 40 CFR
63.11935, the monitoring requirements for your process vent control
device, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11940 and the performance testing
requirements for process vents in 40 CFR 60.11945. You may not use a
flare to comply with the emission limits of the final rule, as
specified in 40 CFR 63.11925(b).
As specified in 40 CFR 63.11925(g), affected sources are required
to characterize their process vents by developing an emission profile
that describes the characteristics of the process vent stream under
either absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions. In 40 CFR
63.11950, we have provided equations to develop the emissions profile
for each batch process vent, including equations for vapor
displacement, gas sweep of a partially filled vessel, heating,
depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air drying and
purging. All other emissions or emissions episodes for the emissions
profile would be determined through an engineering assessment or
through testing approved by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 63.11950(i)
of the final rule.
Closed vent systems. In 40 CFR 63.11930 of the final rule, for
closed vent systems, you are required to meet specified design
requirements and install flow indicators in the bypass lines or meet
other requirements to prevent and detect bypass of the control device.
You must also follow the inspection, leak monitoring and repair
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11930 of the final rule for closed vent
systems. Closed vent systems in vacuum service are required to install
alarms rather than performing leak inspection and monitoring. If you
operate a closed vent system in vacuum service, you are not required to
comply with the other closed vent system requirements in the final
rule.
Performance testing, continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
and continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) requirements for
process vents and associated control devices. Compliance is
demonstrated through a combination of performance testing (as specified
in 40 CFR 63.11925 and 40 CFR 63.11945) and/or monitoring using CPMS
and/or CEMS that measure process vent control device operating
parameters (as specified in 40 CFR 63.11925, 40 CFR 63.11935 and 40 CFR
63.11940). These sections also refer to Tables 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 of the
final rule for emission limits, testing methods and requirements.
Below, we summarize the process vent testing and compliance
requirements by pollutant. Each performance test must consist of three
test runs.
We are requiring that existing and new sources demonstrate initial
compliance with the THC emission limits in Table 1 or 2 of the final
rule by measuring THC at the outlet of the control device using EPA
Method 25A, as specified in Table 8 of the final rule.

[[Page 22861]]

The minimum test run duration would be 1 hour. To demonstrate
continuous compliance with the THC emission limits, each control device
must be tested once every 5 years using EPA Method 25A. Alternatively,
existing and new sources may demonstrate initial compliance with the
total organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 of the final rule by
measuring total organic HAP at the outlet of the control device using
EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320. To demonstrate continuous compliance
with the total organic HAP emission limits, each control device must be
tested once every 5 years using EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320.
During the initial compliance test, you are required to establish
values for the control device operating parameters specified in 40 CFR
63.11935 and 40 CFR 63.11940 (e.g., oxidizer temperature). You would
then use a CPMS to continuously monitor that parameter to demonstrate
continuous compliance with either the THC or total organic HAP limits.
New and existing sources could elect to use THC CEMS instead of
establishing operating limits and using CPMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance for THC emission limits. All CEMS must meet the applicable
performance specifications, procedures and other calibration, accuracy
and operating and maintenance requirements, as specified in 40 CFR
63.11935 of the final rule.
For vinyl chloride, you are required to demonstrate compliance by
conducting an initial performance test using EPA Method 18. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride emission
limits, each control device must be tested once every 5 years using EPA
Method 18.
For CDD/CDF, you demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a
performance test using EPA Method 23 and continuous compliance by
conducting performance tests using EPA Method 23 once every 5 years.
The minimum sampling volume collected is 5 cubic meters for EPA Method
23. For HCl, you must demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial
performance test using EPA Method 26 or 26A. The minimum sampling
volumes collected is 60 liters for EPA Method 26 or 1 cubic meter for
EPA Method 26A. Additionally, you are required to establish operating
parameters during the initial performance test and use CPMS to
continuously monitor those parameters. New and existing sources are no
longer required to use CEMS but have the option of using HCl and/or
CDD/CDF CEMS instead of conducting continuous parametric monitoring
which is sufficient to demonstrate continuous compliance, as provided
in 40 CFR 63.11925 of the final rule. All CEMS must meet the applicable
performance specifications, procedures and other calibration, accuracy
and operating and maintenance requirements, as specified in 40 CFR
63.11935 of the final rule.
The final rule includes specific performance testing requirements,
including the process operating conditions under which performance
tests should be conducted, for continuous process vents and batch
operations, as provided in 40 CFR 63.11945, and discussed in sections
IV.F and IV.G of this preamble.
All CPMS are required to have data averaging periods of 3-hour
block averages. All CPMS are required to meet minimum accuracy and
calibration frequency requirements, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 and
Table 7 of the final rule. For each monitored parameter, you must
establish a minimum, maximum or a range that indicates proper operation
of the control device, as specified in 40 CFR 63.11935(d). The final
rule specifies the parameters that would be monitored for each type of
control device, including each oxidizer, absorber, adsorber, condenser
or other control device. You must also install a flow indicator at the
inlet of the control device to indicate periods of no flow to the
control device.
Some control devices are subject to additional emission point-
specific performance testing requirements, as described in 40 CFR
63.11945 of the final rule. We have included specific performance
testing requirements for continuous process vents and batch operations,
as provided in 40 CFR 63.11945 of the final rule and discussed in
sections IV.F and IV.G of this preamble.
5. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
wastewater?
As specified in 40 CFR 63.11965(b) of the final rule, we are
requiring that you conduct an initial test for process wastewater
streams from the affected source to determine the vinyl chloride and
the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations. You are
required to use EPA Method 107 for measuring vinyl chloride and EPA SW-
846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A for measuring total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP. For process wastewater streams that are not being
treated, we are requiring that you determine which of those process
wastewater streams, if any, require treatment in order to meet the
wastewater emission limits. You must collect one grab sample
immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component
and before mixing with any other wastewater stream and before being
exposed to the atmosphere, discharged to a wastewater treatment process
or discharged untreated as wastewater.
If your process wastewater stream contains vinyl chloride
concentrations greater than or equal to 6.8 ppmw at existing sources or
0.28 ppmw at new sources or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentrations greater than or equal to 110 ppmw at existing sources or
0.018 ppmw at new sources, you are required to treat the wastewater
stream to achieve concentrations below these levels. We are requiring
that you measure at the outlet of the treatment system by collecting
one grab sample each month.
In the final rule, affected sources must comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.105 for maintenance wastewater streams.
For more information on the wastewater compliance requirements, see
40 CFR 63.11965, 40 CFR 63.11970 and 40 CFR 63.11975 of the final rule.
6. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
stripped resins?
In 40 CFR 63.11960 of the final rule, we are requiring that you
conduct initial performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the
vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for
stripped resins. We are also requiring that you conduct daily sampling
and testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl
chloride limit and monthly sampling and testing to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
limit. The tests must be conducted at the outlet of the resin stripper
for continuous processes and immediately after stripping for batch
processes. You are required to use EPA Method 107 for measuring vinyl
chloride and EPA SW-846 Methods 8015C, 8260B, 8270D and 8315A for
measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP listed in Table 10 of
the final rule.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits, you are required to collect one
grab sample every 8 hours for a single grade or one grab sample per
grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more frequent, for each resin
stripper over a 24-hour period. You are required to collect samples
over a 24-hour period that reflects the primary product being produced,
based on total mass of resin

[[Page 22862]]

produced in the preceding 12 months. Grade is defined in 40 CFR
63.12005 of the final rule.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl chloride limit
for a continuous process, you are required to collect one grab sample
from each resin stripper every 8 hours for a single grade or one grab
sample per grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more frequent. To
demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride limit for a batch
process, you are required to collect one grab sample from each batch of
resin produced. You must demonstrate compliance on a daily basis using
a 24-hour grade-weighted average concentration, based on production.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP limits for a continuous process, on a monthly
basis, you are required to collect one grab sample every 8 hours for a
single grade or per grade of PVC resin produced, whichever is more
frequent from each resin stripper over a single 24-hour period. The 24-
hour arithmetic average total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentration for each stripper for each resin grade produced during
the 24-hour sampling period must be calculated using the individual HAP
concentrations measured for the grab.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP limits for a batch process, on a monthly basis,
you are required to collect one grab sample for each batch of resin
produced over a 24-hour period. You must demonstrate compliance on a
monthly basis.
7. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements for
other emission sources?
To demonstrate compliance with the requirements for other emission
sources, we are requiring that prior to opening reactors and other
components, you follow the initial and continuous compliance
requirements of 40 CFR 63.11955. In 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule,
we are requiring that each gasholder must either be routed back into
the process or be vented to a closed vent system and control device
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11925 through 63.11950. To
minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water seals, we are also
requiring the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal.
Affected sources must establish operating procedures for use of
floating devices in gasholders. These operating procedures must
describe how the floating objects will be maintained to ensure a
reduction in fugitive emissions from the gasholder's water seal.

G. What are the performance testing requirements for batch process
operations at major sources?

For batch process operations, performance tests must be conducted
under the most challenging conditions that you run your batch process
operations to ensure that the control device(s) is/are operating at the
level needed for compliance under all conditions. Subsequent to the
initial compliance test, continuous monitoring of operating parameters
established during the initial test is the measure of continuous
compliance with the efficiency requirement under all conditions.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
at major sources?

1. Notifications and Reports
All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 4 of the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHHHH. The General Provisions include specific requirements for
notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Reports include
notifications of initial startup, initial notification, notification of
compliance status, compliance reports, notification of performance
test, notification of inspection, batch pre-compliance report and other
notifications and reports specified in the final 40 CFR 63.11985.
The notification of compliance status report required by 40 CFR
63.9(h) must include certifications of compliance with rule
requirements.
The excess emissions and continuous system performance report and
summary report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the NESHAP General
Provisions (referred to in the rule as a compliance report) are
required to be submitted semi-annually for reporting periods during
which there was: An exceedance of any emission limit or a monitored
parameter; a deviation from any of the requirements in the rule; or if
any process changes occurred and compliance certifications were
reevaluated. The final rule includes additional requirements for what
you must include in these reports for each type of emission point. See
40 CFR 63.11985 of the final rule.
2. Recordkeeping
The final rule requires compiling and retaining records to
demonstrate compliance with each emission standard. These recordkeeping
requirements are specified either directly in the final rule, in the
General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and in 40 CFR part 63, subparts F,
UU and WW. Records that we are requiring that you keep include
performance tests, records of CPMS and CEMS, records of malfunctions,
records of deviations, records specific to each emission point and
other records specified in 40 CFR 63.11990. The 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions requirements that apply are listed in Table 4 of the final
rule. We are requiring that records be kept for 5 years in a form
suitable and readily available for EPA review. We are requiring that
records be kept on site for 2 years; you may keep the records off site
for the remaining 3 years. See 40 CFR 63.11990 of the final rule.

I. What are the requirements for area sources?

We are revising the existing NESHAP for PVC production area sources
(40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD), based on the results of our GACT
analysis, as explained in section V.H of this preamble. The final rule
subcategorizes process vents and stripped resin at existing and new
area sources in the same manner as major sources. All new and existing
sources are required to comply with requirements of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), are identified in Table 4 of
the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD. The final rule contains the
same notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for area
sources as for major sources. In the final rule, performance testing
requirements at batch operations as well as process change
requirements, discussed in sections IV.G and IV.F of this preamble,
respectively, are the same for PVC area sources as for major sources.
The final rule requires area sources to meet the following
requirements:
1. Storage Vessels and Handling Operations
Storage vessel and handling operations at existing and new PVC area
sources are subject to the same standards and compliance requirements
as major sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.1 and IV.F.1 of this
preamble.
2. Equipment Leaks
Equipment leaks at existing and new PVC area sources are subject to
the same standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as
discussed in sections IV.E.2 and IV.F.2 of this preamble.

[[Page 22863]]

3. Heat Exchange Systems
Heat exchange systems at existing and new PVC area sources are
subject to the same standards and compliance requirements as major
sources, as discussed in sections IV.E.3 and IV.F.3 of this preamble.
4. Process Vents
PVC-only process vents and PVC-combined process vents from existing
and new PVC area sources are subject to the emission limits summarized
in Table 13 of this preamble. They are also subject to the same
requirements as major sources for demonstrating compliance (e.g.,
continuous parametric monitoring, performance tests, test methods,
etc.), as discussed in section IV.F.4 of this preamble.

Table 13--Emission Limits for Process Vents at Existing and New Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits \a\
Subcategory Pollutant -------------------------------------------------
Existing sources New sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents............... Vinyl chloride......... 5.3 ppmv............... 5.3 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons 46 ppmv as propane..... 46 ppmv as propane.
(THC) \b\.
Total organic HAP \b\.. 140 ppmv............... 140 ppmv.
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ).... 0.13 ng/dscm........... 0.13 ng/dscm.
PVC-combined process vents........... Vinyl chloride......... 0.56 ppmv.............. 0.56 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons 2.3 ppmv as propane.... 2.3 ppmv as propane.
(THC) \b\.
Total organic HAP...... 29 ppmv................ 29 ppmv.
Dioxin/Furans (TEQ).... 0.076 ng/dscm.......... 0.076 ng/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2).
ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2.
\b\ Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC.

5. Other Emission Sources
Other emission sources include reactor and other component opening
losses and gasholders. These emission sources at existing and new PVC
area sources are subject to the same standards and compliance
requirements as major sources, as discussed in section IV.E.5 and
IV.F.7 of this preamble.
6. Stripped Resins
Stripped resins at new and existing area sources are subject to the
emission limits summarized in Table 14 of this preamble. They are also
subject to the same compliance requirements as major sources, as
discussed in sections IV.E.6 and IV.F.6 of this preamble. The two
existing area sources produce bulk and suspension resins and we have
established GACT limits for those resin subcategories based on data for
the two area sources. However, as discussed in section V of this
preamble, existing major sources may have the potential to become
synthetic area sources by taking federally enforceable permit limits
before the first substantive compliance date of this rule. Therefore,
we are also setting existing area source limits for dispersion resin,
suspension blending resin and copolymer resin. We are also establishing
limits for new area sources based on the type of resin that could
potentially be produced: (1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3)
suspension blending resin, (4) suspension resin and (5) copolymer
resin.

Table 14--Emission Limits for Stripped Resins at New and Existing Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits (ppmw)
---------------------------------
Subcategory Pollutant Existing
sources New sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk resin................................... Vinyl chloride................. 7.1 7.1
Total non-vinyl chloride 170 170
organic HAP.
Suspension................................... Vinyl chloride................. 36 36
Total non-vinyl chloride 36 36
organic HAP.
Dispersion................................... Vinyl chloride................. 1,500 1,500
Total non-vinyl chloride 320 320
organic HAP.
Suspension blending.......................... Vinyl chloride................. 140 140
Total non-vinyl chloride 500 500
organic HAP.
Copolymer.................................... Vinyl chloride................. 790 790
Total non-vinyl chloride 1,900 1,900
organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Wastewater
In the final rule, we are requiring that process wastewater streams
at existing and new PVC area sources reduce the concentration of vinyl
chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, measured immediately
as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component and before
mixing with any other wastewater stream, to no more than the levels
specified in Table 15 of this preamble. We are also requiring that
wastewater streams from existing and new PVC area sources meet the same
requirements for demonstrating compliance as major sources including
maintenance wastewater work practices, as discussed in section IV.F.5
of this preamble.

Table 15--Limits for Process Wastewater at New and Existing Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Pollutant limits
(ppmw)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride.............................................. 2.1
Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP........................ 0.018
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22864]]

J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective
reviews (e.g., risk assessment) of CAA section 112 standards, as well
as for many other purposes, including compliance determinations,
emission factor development and annual emission rate determinations. In
conducting these reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source
owners and operators to locate, collect and submit emissions test data
in paper form because of varied locations for data storage and varied
data storage methods. In recent years though, stack testing firms have
typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making
it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data
accessibility.
In the final rule, the EPA is including a step to increase the ease
and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
Specifically, we are requiring owners and operators of PVC production
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was
constructed to store performance test data for use in developing
emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
Data entry will be through an electronic emissions test report
structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will
generate an electronic report that will be submitted using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The report
is submitted through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for
storage in the WebFIRE database making submittal of data very
straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ and CEDRI can be accessed
through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).
The requirement to submit source test data electronically to the
EPA does not create any additional performance testing and applies only
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. Industry will benefit
from this approach to electronic data submittal. Having these data, the
EPA will be able to develop improved emission factors, make fewer
information requests and promulgate better regulations. The information
to be reported is already required for the existing test methods and is
necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method.
One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT
is that it will provide a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this final rule.
Another advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing
information is required.
Another important benefit of submitting these data to the EPA at
the time the source test is conducted is that it should substantially
reduce the effort involved in data collection activities in the future.
When the EPA has performance test data in hand, there will likely be
fewer or less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with
prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews.
This would result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in
terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and
the EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection
requests and assessing the results).
State, local and tribal agencies may also benefit from the more
streamlined and accurate review process created by an electronic review
process rather than a manual data assessment, making review and
evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more
efficient. Finally, another benefit of the data submittal to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and
regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation
of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure
that emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range
of operational practices. In summary, consistent with Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued on January
18, 2011, in addition to supporting regulation development, control
strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having
an electronic database populated with performance test data should save
industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time,
money and effort, while also improving the quality of emission
inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule

This section contains a summary of major comments and responses,
and rationale for changes made to the proposed rule. The EPA received
many comments covering numerous topics. The EPA's responses to those
comments can be found either in this preamble or in the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers Production: Summary of Public Comments and Responses, in
the PVC docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037).

A. Affected Sources

Comment: Two commenters requested clarification on the
applicability of the EPA's definition of ``new source.'' One commenter
pointed out that if a PVC manufacturing company were planning to
commence construction of a new line, based on the proposed rule, the
new line would trigger ``new source'' requirements regardless of the
magnitude of HAP emissions.
Response: We believe that we have adequately addressed the concerns
raised by the commenter by the way we have revised the definition of a
new affected source because the addition of a PVCPU does not
necessarily trigger a new affected source. In the proposed rule, the
affected source was defined as each individual PVCPU, and a new
affected source was a PVCPU for which construction commenced on or
after May 20, 2011, at a major or area source. The proposed rule also
required that, if components of an existing affected source were
replaced such that the replacement met the definition of reconstruction
in 40 CFR 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced on or after May 20,
2011, then that existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is
subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source.
Under the proposed rule, the affected source was each PVCPU, but a
PVCPU was defined to include all equipment connected by shared piping,
including equipment that is typically shared by multiple units, such as
heat exchangers and wastewater treatment systems. By defining a PVCPU
in this manner, according to the commenter the rule

[[Page 22865]]

could be interpreted to mean that a change to any existing PVCPU such
that it becomes subject to new source requirements or the addition of a
new PVCPU could require existing affected sources also to comply with
the more stringent new source standards. For example, if the facility
chose to comply with the emission limits for the new PVCPU unit using
an existing control device that also controlled emissions from other
existing PVCPU, then all the PVCPU routing to that control device would
have to meet the new source emissions limit because there would be no
way to differentiate the streams at the control device. Because it
might not be technically possible for existing PVCPU to meet the new
source requirements, the alternative would be to construct dedicated
controls or supporting process equipment for new sources. The same
situation would apply to other shared equipment, such as heat
exchangers and wastewater treatment. We did not intend such a result
when we proposed the definitions of affected source and new source in
40 CFR 63.11870.
In light of the comments received, we are modifying the affected
source definition to avoid the unintended results identified by the
commenters with regard to the requirements for new sources.
In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-
wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels,
heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment
systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source
is any one of the following situations:

All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat
exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment
systems that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed
at a Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at
an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to
the rule proposal but has undergone process changes to start
producing PVC.
Reconstructed affected source.

Notwithstanding whether other approaches have been taken in other
rules, the PVC NESHAP rule applies to a narrower selection of processes
than HON or the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
(MON), and we concluded that the affected source and new source
definitions in the final rule are reasonable for the PVC industry.
These edits clarify the requirements for new and existing sources and
any further changes, such as defining threshold limits, are not
necessary.

B. Overlapping Rules

Comment: Commenters expressed concern about overlapping
requirements between the PVC MACT and other MACT that may be applicable
to PVC and EDC/VCM facilities. One commenter requested that
promulgation of the PVC MACT be delayed until a consolidated rule can
be issued that also addresses EDC/VCM manufacturing facilities because
the application of two separate rules is confusing to the regulated
community. Another commenter proposed that the EPA expressly state that
PVC vent streams and the centralized thermal oxidizers and ancillary
equipment in which they are controlled with EDC/VCM vent streams not be
subject to the requirements of the PVC MACT as long as they are
controlled by the HON or other MACT standards because the commenter
asserts that the EPA has made similar accommodations to address
overlapping and conflicting requirements in previous MACT rules.
Other commenters requested that the EPA provide overlap provisions
for facilities that are already subject to other MACT standards. The
commenters stated that affected sources currently subject to other part
63 NESHAP should have the option to choose one compliance option for
the entire source rather than trying to demonstrate compliance with two
separate requirements for the same equipment. One commenter pointed out
that the proposed rule could cause regulatory inconsistencies because,
for a PVCPU utilizing a control device system already regulated under
another part 63 MACT (e.g., HON), that control device would have to
meet two different standards (i.e., HON MACT and PVC MACT).
One commenter proposed that the EPA should provide an option in the
final rule that would allow the owner/operator to continue to comply
with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the MON MACT in lieu of
the PVC MACT rule if greater than 50 percent of the heat input or the
organic HAP vent flow to a ``shared'' emission control device are from
facilities that are subject to the MON MACT.
Response: In response to several of the comments, the final rule
contains two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only process vents
and PVC-combined process vents. Although this rulemaking is not
consolidated with a rule for EDC/VCM production in the manner suggested
by the commenter, the PVC-combined process vents subcategory addresses
the concerns expressed. The process vent standards in the final rule
for combined streams, e.g., from PVC and EDC/VCM, are based on and are
consistent with emission testing conducted by the PVC and EDC/VCM
industries in response to our CAA section 114 requests of PVC, VCM and
EDC facilities. Our decision to set limits for the two process vent
subcategories is further discussed in section V.D of this preamble. If
a PVCPU uses a control device already subject to another Part 63 MACT
rule such as the HON, then the facility may meet both sets of standards
as applicable to the emission point or may choose to separate the two
emission streams and route them to separate control devices, each
complying with applicable requirements in the respective MACT standard.
For the PVC process vent, the applicable standard may change from PVC-
combined to PVC-only if the result is a process vent that qualifies as
PVC-only.
We disagree with the commenters that requested the final rule
should clearly state the governing rule when regulations overlap. If an
emission point is subject to both the PVC NESHAP and other NESHAP
because emissions from two source categories are vented to the same
control device, both standards apply. Multiple standards applicable to
one emission point for the same pollutant are not necessarily
``conflicting'' or ``inconsistent.'' In some standards, the EPA has
allowed compliance with another overlapping standard where that other
overlapping standard was determined to be at least as stringent.
However for this rule, it would not be appropriate to state that
sources automatically or optionally may comply with another NESHAP in
lieu of the PVC NESHAP because the requirements of the other NESHAP may
be less stringent than the PVC NESHAP, including its MACT floor-based
standards. If the EPA were to allow sources to meet the requirements
from overlapping, but potentially less stringent rules in lieu of the
PVC standards, there is the possibility that PVC facilities would not
meet the MACT floor based standards in this rule. Although we recognize
that facilities may be subject to different NESHAP regulations, sources
are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all applicable
regulations. Many NESHAP regulations provide a wide variety of
compliance options, and, as such, it would be a difficult task to
identify in advance which is the most stringent requirement in each
case. We also disagree with allowing PVC sources to comply with other
regulations, such as the MON, instead of complying with the PVC MACT,
if 50 percent of the heat input or vent flow to a control device is

[[Page 22866]]

from a source regulated by the other standard. Such an approach is
unjustified because the emissions from the PVC process might not meet
the PVC MACT limits and achieve the required HAP reductions (described
in the previous paragraph).

C. Pollutants Regulated

Comment: One commenter contended that the CAA required that
standards be set for individual HAP and that a 2004 District of
Columbia Circuit Court decision established criteria that surrogates
must meet. The commenter stated that the EPA does not acknowledge this
test or provide an argument that total organic HAP satisfies the
identified criteria: (1) Target HAP is ``invariably'' present in the
surrogate pollutant, (2) methods to control or capture the surrogate
pollutant ``indiscriminately'' control or capture the target HAP and
(3) the controls for the surrogate are the ``only means'' by which
facilities ``achieve'' reductions of the target HAP. Another commenter
claimed that each pollutant should have emission limits and procedures
that achieve reduction, instead of making vinyl chloride the surrogate.
Another commenter added that the EPA's failure to set emissions
standards for each HAP that PVC plants emit contravenes the CAA and
that the EPA must demonstrate that total organic HAP (or total HAP as
proposed for stripped resin and process wastewater) is a valid
surrogate. One commenter suggested that limits for the individual most
toxic and most prevalent HAP, as well as the total, should be
developed. Another commenter added that the proposed rule only limited
vinyl chloride in monitoring of leaks, process components and
wastewater streams where there are other HAP and toxins present.
Other commenters agreed with the proposed rule that total organic
HAP is the appropriate parameter for limiting organic HAP emissions and
the only workable approach for developing limits that comply with the
CAA. The commenters also explained that a total organic HAP limit
provides the product flexibility needed by the industry's downstream
customers. The commenters further submitted that setting standards for
each individual organic HAP would not reflect an emission level that is
achieved by the best performing facilities in the industry due to the
variability in emissions across the best performing facilities,
consistent with the Court's observations in the PVC MACT Case.
Response: Consistent with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA
has set standards for all HAP emitted from the major source PVC source
category. Contrary to the commenters' assertion, the EPA is not
obligated to set a separate MACT standard for each and every individual
HAP emitted by PVC major sources. Rather, as the Court recognized in
Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. Whitman, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (quoting Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 637), the EPA has
authority to use surrogates to regulate HAP ``if it is reasonable to do
so[.]'' EPA has used surrogates, as appropriate, here and set standards
for the HAP emitted from the major source PVC source category.
As discussed above, the final rule contains emission limits for
vinyl chloride for process vents, stripped resin and process wastewater
at PVC facilities. We have set separate limits for vinyl chloride,
which is an organic HAP, because vinyl chloride is present in all
emission points within the PVC source category and is already regulated
at PVC facilities under the part 61 NESHAP. The final rule also
contains process vent emission limits for THC, as a surrogate for
organic HAP.
Further, the final rule contains process vent emission limits for
CDD/CDF because unlike the vinyl chloride and other organic HAP emitted
from process vents at PVC facilities, CDD/CDF are generated from
combustion control of organic HAP from process vents and require
separate test methods to be detected and measured. Indeed, CDD/CDF
cannot be detected using the test methods available to test for other
organic HAP.
Finally, the final rule contains process vent emission limits for
HCl, which is an inorganic HAP that is generated from the combustion
control of organic HAP from process vents. HCl is controlled in a
completely different manner than organics and requires separate
treatment (usually a scrubber following the thermal oxidizer). As shown
below, HCl is also a surrogate for chlorine. We have limited test data
indicating that chlorine may be present in emissions from process
vents. The HCl standard will address such emissions, however, to the
extent they exist.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, all of
the standards for process vents, stripped resin and process
wastewater are in the form of concentration standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, we are finalizing a limit on THC as a surrogate for
organic HAP emissions from process vents. THC is an appropriate
surrogate, applying the 3-part ``test'' cited by the commenter. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 987 (D.C. Cir. 2004). First, the
target HAP at issue here (i.e., organic HAP) from PVC process vents are
``invariably'' present in the surrogate (THC), i.e., PVC process vent
emissions always contain organic HAP, and the organic HAP are comprised
of hydrocarbons that will be measured as THC. Second, methods to
control THC (in this case, a combination of vapor recovery, such as
condensers, along with thermal oxidizers for PVC process vents)
indiscriminately control the target organic HAP. Finally, the methods
to control THC are the only means to achieve reductions of the target
organic HAP from process vents that we have identified for this source
category. We considered whether changes could be made to the VCM
reaction process that is used to produce PVC and/or to the chemical
inputs to the reaction process, and we concluded that such changes are
not possible without fundamentally changing the PVC product being
manufactured by these facilities. (See discussion below regarding
variety of PVC products.) It is indisputable that the controls
described above, which are necessary to meet the final emission limits,
result in the removal of THC, which means organics are removed as well.
Accordingly, we have met the three-part test identified by the
commenter for surrogacy, as we have shown that THC is an appropriate
surrogate for organic HAP from PVC process vents.
The three-part test upon which the commenter relies stems from a
District of Columbia Circuit case that addressed the appropriateness of
using particulate matter as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP. In a
different case reviewing the PVC MACT standards issued in 2002, the
District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA has authority to use a
surrogate ``if it is reasonable to do so[.]'' Mossville Envt'l Action
Now v. Whitman, 370 F.3d 1242-43. We maintain that THC is a reasonable
surrogate for organic HAP based on our determination that for PVC
process vents there are always organic HAP in the THC, and PVC
facilities will comply with the THC standard by using vapor recovery
and thermal oxidization to reduce emissions of THC, which necessarily
and indiscriminately will reduce emissions of all organic HAP. Thus,
the removal of the THC will remove the organic HAP. Mossville Envt'l
Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242-43 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Similarly, HCl is a reasonable surrogate for chlorine. Chlorine is
present with the HCl, and the methods to control HCl would necessarily
capture or control any chlorine that may be emitted by major PVC
facilities. In addition, we are not aware of any other controls for the
PVC industry that

[[Page 22867]]

would achieve reductions in chlorine, other than the controls that
would be required to meet the final HCl limit in this rule. For
additional information on chlorine and HCl see the Revised Baseline
Emission Estimates for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category and the Revised Costs and
Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category technical memoranda in the
docket for this rule.
For stripped resin and process wastewater, the final rule includes
emission limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, as opposed to
THC. We were not able to establish a THC limit as a surrogate for
organic HAP emissions from stripped resins and process wastewater
because the data available to the agency, upon which the standards were
based, were from sampling a slurry (liquid), not a gaseous stream which
is necessary to collect THC data and to establish THC limits.
Specifically, the data in the record were sampling data taken at the
outlet of the resin strippers. The outlet of a resin stripper is the
most readily available place to obtain a sample (as opposed to the
resin dryer exhaust) and is appropriate given that we project that all
of the HAP in the resin stripper outlet are ultimately emitted from
downstream processes (e.g., resin dryers). However, at the outlet of
the stripper, the resin is in either a slurry (liquid) or dry (solid)
form, as opposed to a gaseous stream, as is the case for process vents.
There are no test methods available to determine levels of THC in a
liquid or solid phase. Accordingly, we had no basis on which to set a
THC limit and we, therefore, established limits for vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP from stripped resin and process
wastewater.
However, the control approaches used to meet the total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP emission limits are the same as those used to
reduce emissions of individual organic HAP species. Specifically,
because total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP is comprised of many
individual organic HAP, the reduction of total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP by means of a resin stripper (for resins) and a wastewater
stripper (for wastewater) will likewise reduce the target individual
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. Further, we are aware of only one means
to control organics from resins and process wastewater for this source
category and that is through the use of a stripper, which
indiscriminately controls all organics, and we are not aware of any
other control that would indiscriminately capture all organics from
resins and process wastewater. Accordingly, we believe it is reasonable
to set a final limit for total non-vinyl organic HAP from resins and
process wastewater.
Moreover, as some of the commenters recognized, a total non-vinyl
organic HAP limit is particularly appropriate given the unique nature
of this industry. We set the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP MACT
floor limit for stripped resin and process wastewater on specific
information provided to the EPA from stripped resin and process
wastewater sampling conducted by each company in response to our August
21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request of the PVC
industry. In evaluating approaches to setting standards based on the
stripped resin and process wastewater data, the EPA received
uncontroverted information that a PVC facility can and often does
produce many different grades \2\ of PVC resin, each having different
characteristics based on a different chemical formulation and
production recipes and consequently different organic HAP emission
profiles, and that different grades can be produced on a daily basis.
PVC facilities produce a particular grade of resin according to the
needs of their customers and their own business decisions, and based on
information provided to the EPA by industry, we conclude that the
organic HAP emitted necessarily varies depending on the particular
grade of resin produced. In fact, according to one commenter, a
particular facility may produce up to a 100 grades of different resins,
sometimes producing different resins within a single 24-hour period.
Given the large number of resins that may be produced by a particular
facility, the associated diversity of chemical formulations and
production recipes for these different resin grades, and the resulting
differences in organic HAP emission profiles coupled with the fact that
the control approaches used to meet the total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP emission limits are the same as those used to reduce
emissions of individual organic HAP species and are the only means of
achieving such reductions, we are finalizing total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP standards for stripped resin and process wastewater at PVC
production facilities. These standards together with standards for
vinyl chloride directly limit all organic HAP from PVC stripped resin
and process wastewater at PVC production facilities, as reported in
test/sampling data available to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ ``Grade'' of PVC resin is more specific than ``type'' of PVC
resin. See definitions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to comments, we created five subcategories in the final
rule for stripped resins. If, as some of the commenters suggest, we
were to set individual organic HAP limits, industry would likely argue
that we would have to consider setting standards for a prohibitively
large number of subcategories, perhaps as many as there are grades of
PVC resin, to ensure that facilities producing grades of PVC resin with
incompatible reaction processes and/or chemical inputs were not grouped
in an inappropriate manner. In the final rule, we established the
additional subcategories in response to comments where we found data in
the record to support such subcategorization. Without extensive
additional data from industry detailing each of the resin grades they
produce, by facility, with attendant emissions information, we are not
in a position to evaluate whether additional subcategories are
appropriate. As such, we have no basis to establish additional
subcategories on this record.
As explained previously, we are establishing THC as a surrogate for
controlling all organic HAP other than vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF from
process vents. However, as a compliance alternative in the final rule,
facilities may comply with an equivalent total organic HAP emission
limit in lieu of the THC limit for process vents. Such an alternative
is appropriate for process vents for the same reasons that total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP limits are appropriate for stripped resins
and process wastewater, as discussed above. (See preamble section III.C
for further discussion on the emission limits we are establishing.) We
also note that the approach of setting total organic HAP limits for
process vents (or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for
stripped resins and process wastewater) is consistent with the approach
in other NESHAP, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (the MON), which
has been successful in limiting, not only total organic HAP, but also
individual organic HAP.
Finally, one commenter incorrectly states that the EPA set only
vinyl chloride limits for monitoring of leaks, process components and
wastewater streams. As explained above, the EPA set limits for
pollutants, including but not limited to vinyl chloride, emitted from
process vents, stripped resins and process wastewater. The commenter
incorrectly states that the equipment leak and heat exchanger standards
have only a vinyl chloride limit. In the final

[[Page 22868]]

rule, applicability of the equipment leak work practice standards is
determined based on whether the equipment is in HAP service. In HAP
service means that a process component (including equipment) either
contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight
or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP. Additionally, all
equipment leak standards are based on determining VOC leaks from
equipment using EPA's Method 21 and fixing leaks that are detected. VOC
are present throughout the PVC process. As such, if you identify a leak
of VOC, fixing that leak necessarily will eliminate the VOC emissions
and any other HAP emissions. Thus, VOC is a marker that is indisputably
present in all PVC streams. A HAP-specific equipment leak definition is
not possible because EPA Method 21, which is the only currently
approved EPA method to detect equipment leaks, detects VOC, not
individual compounds.
For heat exchange systems, based on comments received, we are
including in the final rule a vinyl chloride leak action level and
monitoring requirements because vinyl chloride is always present along
with other HAP when process material leaks into cooling water, and,
therefore, detection of vinyl chloride and repair of the leak will
control the leak for all HAP. However, because some facilities already
have programs in place to detect total strippable VOC in cooling water,
we are also providing that as an option for detecting leaks into
cooling water. Here, the same principle applies in that, controlling
the VOC leak will in turn control HAP that leak into the cooling water.
Thus, irrespective of whether a source monitors for VOC or vinyl
chloride, the result is the same: Controlling any such identified leak
will, in turn control any HAP that leak into the cooling water.
Finally, with respect to the commenter that suggested that limits
for the individual most toxic and most prevalent HAP should be
developed, the commenter fails to recognize that EPA has authority to
use surrogates to address HAP. The EPA has appropriately identified the
HAP emitted from the PVC source category and set standards for those
HAP, including using surrogates where appropriate.
Comment: Several commenters raised issues with the term ``HAP'' and
related terms, such as ``total organic HAP'' and ``total HAP.'' Two
commenters stated that, though the EPA refers to sampling and specific
limits for HAP and organic HAP, there is no definition of HAP, organic
HAP, or total organic HAP provided for process vents, stripped resin or
other emission sources. Two commenters stated that these subsets of HAP
should be restricted and defined because the PVC manufacturing process
does not have the potential to emit the entire list of HAP designated
by the CAA. Another commenter requested that a subset of the complete
list of total organic HAP be defined specifically for suspension type
process facilities. Two commenters submitted a subset of the complete
list of organic HAP that they believe is appropriate to define in the
rule. The commenters submitted 19 HAP that should be subjected to a
stripped resin limitation through the total organic HAP approach and 11
additional HAP that were not detected, but were analyzed and reported
as non-detect.
Response: The term ``hazardous air pollutant'' (HAP) is defined in
40 CFR 63.2 as ``any air pollutant listed in or pursuant to section
112(b) of the Act''. It follows directly that ``total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP'' means all organic HAP except vinyl chloride. The
terms ``organic HAP'' and ``total organic HAP'' are commonly understood
terms meaning HAP that are carbon based, individually or in total,
respectively.
In the proposed rule, we did not limit the definition of total
organic HAP for process vents to a specific set of organic HAP or total
HAP for stripped resins and wastewater to a specific set of total HAP
that are emitted by the PVC industry. Part of our intent through the
issuance of the required process vent testing and resin sampling under
our CAA section 114 authority was to obtain data on which HAP were in
fact used, produced, and/or emitted from PVC production facilities. We
have considered the commenters' suggestions on requiring compliance
based on a subset of HAP, i.e., those HAP that have the potential to be
emitted from PVC facilities. Based on our analysis of the process vent
testing data, resin sampling data, and responses to our August 21,
2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request, we recognize that the
industry does not emit all HAP, but rather only a subset of HAP,
primarily organic HAP, as discussed above. We reviewed the commenters'
lists of HAP for stripped resin and compared those lists to the
sampling data submitted. We confirmed that PVC stripped resin and
process wastewater has been shown to contain or may contain 30 of the
HAP listed under section 112(b) of the CAA, in addition to vinyl
chloride, and so we are requiring facilities to analyze, at a minimum,
those 30 organic HAP and vinyl chloride, in both stripped resins and
process wastewater samples. Although these 30 HAP are all the organic
HAP we identified in the data available to the EPA, it is not
appropriate to set individual HAP limits because the combination and
quantity of each of these 30 HAP vary depending on the wide variety of
resin grades produced within the PVC industry. As discussed previously,
it would be impractical to set individual HAP limits specific to the
potential large number of subcategories that would be necessary to
account for the more than 100 different resin grades produced.
We are also requiring facilities to develop a facility-specific
list of HAP for both stripped resins and process wastewater. The
facility-specific list of HAP must include all HAP expected to be
present in stripped resin and process wastewater samples, including any
HAP not listed in table 10 of the final rule. Our analysis is
documented in the memorandum, Analysis of HAP in Stripped Resins and
Wastewater for the Final PVC Rule. Under this final rule, to meet the
stripped resin and process wastewater total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP emission limits, you must test for those 30 HAP that are known to
possibly be present in the PVC production process based on all the data
available to the EPA, and, in addition, sources must test for HAP
beyond those 30 that facilities are aware of based on the resin grades
they produce. We are including those compounds to ensure that they
would be included in the facility's calculation of total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP should those compounds become present in the
process in detectable quantities.
For process vents, demonstrating compliance with the THC limit does
not require testing based on a list of specific HAP as EPA Method 25A
measures THC and not speciated HAP.

D. Subcategories

Comment: Two commenters contended that the EPA should use data from
stand-alone PVC facilities to establish the process vent emission
limits. Another commenter asserted that the agency recognized that it
was important to set standards based on PVC-only vent gas flows and
required industry to isolate and burn PVC-only vent streams at co-
located facilities. The commenter added that thermal oxidizers at
stand-alone EDC/VCM plants or co-located with PVC plants tend to be
much larger than those at stand-alone PVC units. The commenter stated
that to produce data in response to the CAA section 114 testing
required for PVC facilities, large volumes of natural gas were burned
to treat the small PVC-only vent streams to make up for the other

[[Page 22869]]

streams, such as EDC or VCM, that had been tied off as instructed by
the CAA section 114 survey, resulting in a non-representative emission
profile. The commenter noted that the Vinyl Institute Working Group
submitted to the EPA a list of facilities (stand-alone PVC plants) that
it believes is appropriate to use in setting the MACT floor for process
vents.
Response: This final rule contains two subcategories for process
vents: PVC-only process vents and PVC-combined process vents. In
response to comments submitted by the industry and others, based on our
review of those comments and a subsequent review of the testing data
submitted in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey
and testing request for the PVC industry, we determined that there are
significant differences in the size and type of process vents that
originate from PVCPU and process vents from PVCPU that are combined
with process vents from other source categories, such as EDC/VCM or
other HON sources, prior to control. The differences in the HAP
concentrations in the process vent streams arise from the fundamental
differences in the products, unit operations, and the manufacturing
process of the source categories that are typically co-located with
and/or that share a control device with a PVC affected source. Examples
include EDC and VCM manufacturing processes, which are commonly co-
located with a PVC production process and manufacture the primary raw
materials (EDC is used to produce VCM) used in the production of PVC
resin. Additionally, the average control device volumetric outlet flow
rate is 2,100 percent greater for process vents from PVCPU that are
combined with process vents from other source categories compared to
process vents that originate only from PVCPU, a significant difference
in size. Therefore, in the final rule, we have established two
subcategories for process vents: PVC-only and PVC-combined. PVC-only
process vents comprise process vent streams that originate solely from
a PVC affected source. We agree with commenters who suggested that the
testing conducted using large volumes of natural gas to treat these
small PVC-only vent streams did not produce a representative emission
profile. Therefore, we did not include those tests results to determine
the PVC-only MACT floors for process vents. PVC-combined process vents
comprise process vent streams that originate from a PVCPU and that are
combined or are co-controlled with process vent streams that originate
from other source categories, such as EDC or VCM production processes.
Details on the determination of MACT floors and limits for process
vents are documented in the technical memorandum, Revised Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is
available in the docket.
Comment: Two commenters contended that PolyOne's vent gas absorbers
are recovery devices and not control devices because they capture and
recycle vinyl chloride back into the production process, rather than
treating it as a waste. The commenters added that, because PolyOne's
vent gas absorbers do not operate at elevated temperatures or combust
the vinyl chloride, they do not result in the formation of additional
HAP or generation of unwanted by-products, such as CDD/CDF and
greenhouse gases. The commenters contended that the proposed MACT would
require backup thermal oxidizers to be used continuously. The commenter
added that large amounts of energy will be consumed and greenhouse
gasses emitted in an effort to control a tiny amount of VOC. The
commenter concluded by arguing that consideration should be given to
the overall air impact of operating backup thermal oxidizers
continuously.
Another commenter stated that the flow rate out of PolyOne's
absorbers is two orders of magnitude less than the emissions flow rate
from control device technology that includes thermal oxidizers and
scrubbers combined. The commenters stated that the proposed MACT should
take emissions rates into consideration and not solely rely on
emissions concentrations when establishing limits for recovery devices.
One commenter added that for sites equipped with vent gas absorber
recovery technology, thermal oxidizers are necessary only in the event
of an outage or malfunction with the operation of the vent gas
absorbers to ensure that any vinyl chloride, which is not recycled back
to the process, is destroyed.
Response: The rule contains emission limits for process vents that
apply at the point where the gaseous stream is released to the
atmosphere. While we recognize that a vent gas absorber at the
commenter's facilities recover vinyl chloride, those absorbers also
have stacks that emit to the atmosphere and would therefore be subject
to the process vent limit. The rule does not require that affected
sources use a specific control or recovery device to meet the process
vent limits, and the final emission standards are not based on whether
a vent gas absorber is classified as a recovery device or control
device. An affected source may use any control device to reduce the
process vent emissions to meet the required limits. We considered
setting alternative formats for the process vent emission limits.
However, we did not have sufficient information provided from industry
on process vent stream flow rates and concentrations to develop or
evaluate other formats, such as mass emission rates.
Comment: Many commenters contended that the EPA should further
subcategorize resins. One commenter stated that the EPA should
recognize that resin recipes, production processes and equipment
required for end product utility, govern the emissions and the ability
to strip each type of resin. The commenter stated that the data
provided by the Vinyl Institute demonstrate the differences between
production processes and PVC morphology and particle size of the PVC
products manufactured. The commenter added that these differences
equate to differences in ability to steam strip the resin of vinyl
chloride, among other things.
Several commenters stated that copolymer resins are a completely
different chemistry from homopolymer resins and should be regulated
through their own subcategory. The commenters requested that the EPA
subcategorize stripped resin by differences in chemistry (co-monomers),
raw material inputs, process equipment, resin types and grades or other
factors, provided such subcategorization is reasonable.
One commenter objected to the agency's proposal to subcategorize
resins as ``bulk'' and ``dispersion,'' with all other resins, including
copolymers, suspension blending and suspension resins relegated to an
``other resin'' subcategory. The commenter stated that the EPA's
proposed subcategorization scheme is textually inconsistent and will
likely cause regulatory confusion within the industry. The commenter
stated the agency's proposed subcategories ignore critical differences
in processing equipment, material inputs and resin morphology that have
a critical and differentiating impact on the HAP profile of the various
resins. The commenter contended that, at a minimum, the EPA should
organize stripped resin limits along the following subcategories for
homopolymers: Suspension, dispersion, bulk and blending; and for
copolymers: Suspension, dispersion, blending and solution. The
commenter added that by

[[Page 22870]]

definition, ``copolymers'' were considered distinct enough from
polyvinyl chloride polymers that the EPA used the conjunctive ``and
copolymers'' to describe the source category being addressed here.
One commenter added that the EPA should subcategorize copolymers by
the resin type because they are capable of being manufactured in
different processes (suspension, dispersion and solution) that present
completely different HAP emission profiles. The commenter stated that
the general class of copolymers requires differentiation from the
homopolymer category. The commenter added that within this copolymer
class there are different resin types (suspension, dispersion, blending
and solution) that require subcategorization similar to homopolymers.
The commenter continued that for each resin type, however, the choice
of co-monomer creates different HAP profiles affecting the HAP
analyzed; co-monomers are chosen, based on the end product
characteristics specified by the customer. The commenter added that the
vinylidene chloride copolymer is a highly crystalline polymer, making
the removal or stripping of vinyl chloride from the resin more
difficult than typical PVC polymers. The commenter stated that, to
require its facility to meet this proposed standard for all other
resins, is technically infeasible, based on the unique chemistry used.
Several commenters contended that dispersion resins should be
regulated separately from suspension blending resins. The commenters
stated that dispersion resins and suspension blending resins should be
included in the MACT as their own categories due to the very different
nature of both the manufacturing technologies used and the resins
produced. The commenter added that suspension blending resins are a
type of specialty resin used in flooring, automotive interiors and
synthetic leather products. The commenters stated that the proposed
MACT does not specifically address suspension blending resins, leaving
this class of resin manufacturing unclear. Further, for the same
reasons discussed for dispersion resins, the commenters contended that
suspension blending resins require a separate subcategory under the
proposed MACT. The commenters asserted that suspension blending resins
have very different characteristics than generic suspension resins,
including smooth surfaces and different particle sizes of distribution,
all of which present different challenges when stripping vinyl chloride
from a different resin.
One commenter added that the previous 30-day data submitted
pursuant to the EPA's CAA section 114 request for PVC facilities were
not representative of blending PVC resin alone. The commenter stated
that the data were for suspension, including suspension blending PVC
resin. The commenter asserted that samples for regular suspension resin
were composited with blending PVC resin samples to get one daily
suspension analysis rather than analyzing the samples separately. The
commenter stated that both categories react to steam stripping quite
differently and truly are different products. One commenter submitted
data to support their assertion that suspension blending PVC resin,
because of its unique morphology, could not possibly be stripped to the
levels proposed for suspension general purpose resin. Two commenters
argued that further subcategories of suspension resins should either be
established or considered. One commenter requested that the EPA
subcategorize the emission limits for the ``other resin'' category into
the following subcategories: Low molecular weight (LMW), high molecular
weight (HMW) and general purpose.
Response: In the proposed rule, limits were developed for new and
existing sources for three subcategories of PVC resin: (1) Bulk resin,
(2) dispersion resin and (3) all other resins. Based on our review of
the public comments and our concurrent review and analysis of the
additional data on the vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resins
submitted by the PVC industry, we determined that the data clearly show
that there are significant differences in the concentrations of vinyl
chloride and other HAP that remain in the various types of resins
following stripping. The differences in the concentrations of vinyl
chloride and other HAP that remain in the various resin types are a
direct consequence of several factors related to the overall process to
produce each resin type. These factors include: The different raw
materials necessary to produce each resin type, the unique process
chemistry required to produce each resin type, the process conditions
required to produce each resin type and differences in the morphology
of the resin particles following polymerization. The current technology
that is used to remove residual vinyl chloride and HAP from polymerized
resin is steam stripping. The conditions under which steam stripping is
performed are unique to the resin type being produced and the ability
to strip, or remove the maximum amount of residual vinyl chloride and
HAP from the resin types, is constrained by the resin morphology,
product quality and customer end-use requirements. The different resin
types all differ in morphology, particle size and porosity, which all
affect the ability to remove residual, or unreacted VCM and other HAP
from the resin matrix. For a steam stripping unit that is operating as
designed to remove the maximum amount of residual vinyl chloride and
HAP from polymerized resin, simply adding more steam to that unit may
result in some additional removal of vinyl chloride and other HAP, but
the additional heat from the steam will degrade the resin and thus
negatively affect the resin quality such that it will not meet customer
or performance specifications. Therefore, for the final rule, we are
responding to the comments and information submitted to the EPA by
dividing the limits for stripped resins into two general groupings: (1)
Homopolymers and (2) copolymers. Homopolymer resins are further divided
into four subcategories: (1) Suspension resin, (2) dispersion resin,
(3) suspension blending resin and (4) bulk resin. Some commenters
suggested further subcategorizing copolymer resins; however, the data
submitted by industry to the EPA did not include sufficient specificity
that would allow developing additional subcategories of copolymer resin
types. Therefore, copolymer resins are not further subcategorized in
the final rule. Other commenters suggested additional subcategories
based on molecular weight, grade and other physical properties.
However, we did not develop additional subcategories for various resin
grades (e.g., LMW, HMW or general purpose) because this could have
potentially resulted in hundreds or thousands of resin subcategories,
each with its own MACT analysis, making such an approach impractical to
establish and administer.

E. MACT Floor Calculation

Following proposal, industry submitted additional data and
information on several emission sources: (1) Process vents, (2)
stripped resins, (3) process wastewater and (4) gasholders. For process
vents, stripped resins and process wastewater, we received additional
data for organic compounds and HCl. Metal HAP are not present in the
PVC production process. The post-proposal data submittals are available
in the docket. The data were used to revise the MACT floors and
impacts.

[[Page 22871]]

1. Additional Data Submitted Process Vents
Industry provided data clarifying which PVC facilities are co-
located with EDC and VCM production or other source categories and
which facilities are stand-alone PVC producers. Industry also provided
clarification of the conditions (e.g., percentage contribution of the
PVCPU to the total process vent stream) during stack testing conducted
in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing
request sent to PVC companies. Industry identified which facilities
typically co-control non-PVC streams. The EPA also received results of
emissions tests conducted for EDC and VCM production facilities, some
of which are co-located and co-controlled with PVC production
facilities, as required by our March 16, 2011, CAA section 114 survey
and testing request for VCM/EDC production companies. The CAA section
114 request required that emission data be collected by testing the
VCM/EDC process vents for vinyl chloride, dioxin/furan and THC
emissions. The results of emissions tests from the co-located and co-
controlled facilities included data for PVC-combined process vents
(e.g., any VCM/EDC process vent that also contains a PVC process
stream) that were included in the MACT floor analysis for PVC-combined
process vents.
Stripped Resin
Industry provided a database containing 4 years of daily average
vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resins, determined by using
EPA Method 107 for all but two PVC production facilities. The provided
database contained information for four specific resin types: (1)
Suspension, (2) dispersion, (3) suspension blending and (4) vinyl
acetate copolymer (VACO).
Industry also submitted an updated 30-day resin sampling
concentration database for total HAP, based on using various EPA SW-846
Methods and providing additional specificity on resin types and
corrections to previously submitted data; VACO and suspension blending
data were separated from dispersion and suspension data, respectively.
Another commenter submitted new vinyl chloride and total organic HAP
data for suspension blending resin as a result of additional sampling
and testing performed by the company independent of the EPA's CAA
section 114 request for the PVC production industry.
Additionally, results that were reported as composites of two or
more resin types were identified by resin type, and previous results
from the OxyVinyls suspension plants that were indicated as a reporting
limit (RL) were changed to non-detect. Vinylidene/vinyl chloride
copolymer concentration data from Dow Chemical were also added to the
database.
Wastewater
Commenters submitted approximately 1 year of vinyl chloride
concentration data at the outlet of wastewater strippers for nine PVC
production facilities. All concentrations were obtained using EPA
Method 107. The data were provided on a varying basis across facilities
(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly).
Gasholders
In response to industry comments, we requested and received annual
emissions estimates for small and large sized gasholders. In addition
to submitting comments regarding suggested control and work practice
options for gasholders, industry also provided estimates of the capital
cost and emission reductions for work practices that could be used to
reduce emissions from gasholders, i.e., using floating objects.
Equipment Leaks
At proposal, we ranked the LDAR programs used at each affected PVC
source from most stringent to least stringent, based on the leak
definitions, monitoring frequencies, control requirements and repair
requirements reported in the responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA
section 114 survey and testing request. We then identified the LDAR
programs employed by the best-performing five sources. The results of
this analysis showed that three out of the best-performing five sources
comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2 controls. Therefore, we
proposed that existing and new affected sources comply with the LDAR
program requirements of the National Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks-Control Level 2 Standards, subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63.
During the comment period, one of the facilities that had responded
that they complied with subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 (Shintech
Freeport), stated that the survey response was in error, and the
facility is actually complying with the equipment leak requirements of
40 CFR part 61, subpart V. This change results in a revision to the
MACT floor for existing major sources, which is discussed in section
V.E.2 of this preamble.
2. MACT Floor Revisions
In the final rule, we revised the MACT floor-based emission limits
for process vents, stripped resins and wastewater, as discussed in the
technical memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category, which is available in the docket.
Process Vents
In the final rule we calculated the MACT floors for the two process
vent subcategories, PVC-only and PVC-combined, accounting for
variability using the UPL calculation. At proposal, a 99-percent UPL
calculation was used where the m value (representing the number of test
runs used in the compliance average) was 30 for the THC compliance
limit option. For the final rule, we changed the m value to 3 because 3
THC test runs using EPA Method 25A will be performed over the 5-year
period with which compliance will be averaged. Therefore, an m value of
3 for the THC UPL calculation is appropriate.
In the final rule, we revised the procedure for identifying a
representative method detection level (RDL) for vinyl chloride, HCl,
CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP for PVC-only and PVC-combined
process vents. At proposal, we determined the RDL by identifying the
highest test-specific MDL reported by the top 5 best-performing
facilities for each pollutant in each subcategory that was also less
than the calculated average emission concentration of those top 5 best-
performing facilities.
For the final rule, the RDL for vinyl chloride and total organic
HAP was determined by identifying the available reported pollutant-
specific MDL values for the top 5 best-performing units regardless of
any subcategory. However, the data set of reported pollutant-specific
MDL values included MDL values only from reference methods for new
source performance standards (NSPS) and NESHAP rulemakings since they
are the established compliance methods for air pollutants and have a
more robust quality assurance procedure. For our August 21, 2009, CAA
section 114 testing request, other test methods besides reference
methods for NSPS/NESHAP (i.e., EPA SW-846 Method 0031) were used to
account for all the possible HAP that could potentially be emitted from
process vents. Emission data collected as a result of performance
testing with non-reference methods for NSPS/NESHAP

[[Page 22872]]

were used in the MACT floor analyses since the resulting values could
be measured using reference methods. From that combined pool of MDL
data, we calculated the arithmetic mean value. We then called the
resulting mean of the MDL values the RDL.
For HCl and CDD/CDF we used RDL values based on data collected for
several hundred EPA Method 23 and EPA Method 26A emissions tests from
various industries, a much larger data set than the one compiled only
from PVCPU testing. The RDL values calculated from the larger data sets
are more representative of the inherent measurement variability both
within and between testing companies. The RDL values were determined by
the same procedure described above for vinyl chloride and total organic
HAP. All of the available reported pollutant-specific MDL values for
the best-performing facilities regardless of any subcategory were
identified and an arithmetic mean was calculated from the resulting
data set and determined to be the RDL.
For THC, we determined that the RDL for EPA Method 25A for a 10-ppm
propane span would be 0.5 ppm propane. We arrived at this RDL by
surveying the typical flame ionization analyzers in use by the testing
community and evaluating the required method criteria in EPA Method
25A. The survey of the instruments yielded several vender stated
instrument detection limits from 0.01 to 0.5 ppm as carbon with one
independent third party degermation of 0.8 ppm as carbon. In addition,
several instruments' minimum reportable resolution is 0.1 ppm as
propane. The method criteria allows for a 3-percent zero and span drift
during performance runs and an initial criteria of 5 percent of the
calibration gas. The sum allowable calibration error and drift would be
approximately 0.475 ppm as propane (using a 3.5-ppm propane span gas),
which would be higher than the instrumental detection limits.
For vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP, the
MACT floor emission limit was compared to 3 times the RDL. As in the
proposed rule, if 3 times the RDL was greater than the calculated MACT
floor emission limit, we concluded that the MACT floor emission limit
does not account entirely for measurement variability and, therefore,
we used the value equal to 3 times the RDL in place of the calculated
MACT floor emission limit. The variability analysis conducted for the
final rule is contained in the memorandum titled Revised Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is
available in the docket.
Stripped Resin
Vinyl chloride and total HAP limits for stripped resins were
calculated at proposal using a 99-percent UPL calculation and 30 days
of vinyl chloride and other HAP data from all facilities that conducted
resin sampling and analysis as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section
114 survey and testing request for the PVC industry. In developing the
proposal, we requested sources subject to the CAA section 114 request
provide information on the residual compounds in the resin leaving the
stripper on a mass-basis. After the mass-based sampling results were
submitted to us, the Vinyl Institute, on behalf of the PVC industry,
provided a database of the concentration values that were used by the
facilities to convert their concentrations to mass-based values. For
the proposed rule, we calculated limits for dispersion resin, based on
the reported mass-based values for each HAP present in the resin, which
we then converted to concentrations, based on dispersion resin
production. The proposed limits for all other resin types (i.e.,
suspension resin) were calculated, based on the originally measured
vinyl chloride concentration values that were reported by each
suspension resin facility and compiled into the concentration database
that was supplied to us by the Vinyl Institute. The limit for bulk
resin was calculated using the vinyl chloride and other HAP
concentrations provided by the single bulk resin manufacturing facility
in their response to the CAA section 114 request for the PVC industry.
Variability was not assessed in the calculation of the limit for bulk
resin because the data for vinyl chloride and total organic HAP
consisted of one unique value each.
We received numerous comments on our approach at proposal for
calculating stripped resin limits, which included comments on the
subcategories, the use of mass-based values for determining the limits
for dispersion resin, the use of vinyl chloride concentration data
collected via EPA Method 107 in calculating a total organic HAP limit
where a different test method was used for other non-vinyl organic
chloride HAP, our approach for accounting for variability in the
stripped resin limits and the m value in the UPL calculation for both
vinyl chloride and total organic HAP.
During the public comment period, the Vinyl Institute provided us
with an updated database, as described above, of the vinyl chloride and
other HAP concentration values that were measured as the resin was
exiting the stripper(s) and that were not then converted by the
facilities to mass values. We also received supplemental resin sampling
data from one PVC facility (PolyOne) and further information regarding
their previous data submittals. In consideration of the comments
received and our subsequent review and analysis of the submitted data,
we made several changes to the limits for stripped resins. No
additional data were provided from the single bulk resin manufacturer,
so the final limits for bulk resin were recalculated only to remove
vinyl chloride from the calculation for the total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limit. Variability was not assessed in the calculation of
the limit for bulk resin because the data for vinyl chloride and total
HAP consisted of one unique value each. For the final rule, we used the
original concentration values, as measured during the required emission
testing of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing
request, and analyzed it as the basis for setting the MACT floors for
suspension, dispersion, suspension blending and copolymer resin. This
provided a consistent basis to compare concentrations of vinyl chloride
and other HAP and calculate limits on a consistent basis. At proposal,
the vinyl chloride limits for all subcategories except for bulk resin
were calculated using data obtained from EPA SW-846 Method 8260B and a
representative detection limit analysis was performed, based on those
data. For the final rule, vinyl chloride limits were determined by
using a percentile calculated from 4 years of vinyl chloride
concentration data from the top five sources that were obtained by
sampling using EPA Method 107 and provided by the Vinyl Institute. The
change in methodology was appropriate because the 4-year data set was
sufficiently large (between 523 and 5,165 data points total for the
calculation of each limit, depending on the resin subcategory, and not
including bulk resin) that it is not necessary to estimate variability
by use of the UPL equation. Rather, by using a percentile, variability
is accounted for directly from the vinyl chloride data set comprised of
the lowest emitting sources. Percentiles represent the specified slice
of the sample data and unlike confidence and prediction intervals, they
are distribution-free. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of vinyl
chloride concentration values reported were above the

[[Page 22873]]

detection limit for EPA Method 107 and therefore, a representative
detection limit analysis did not need to be performed.
In the proposed rule, the total HAP limits for the stripped resin
subcategories included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the
final rule, vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from the total
HAP limit calculations, resulting in limits for total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP for all subcategories of stripped resin. This was
appropriate because the data used to develop the MACT floors and limits
for vinyl chloride in stripped resin were based on EPA Method 107.
While vinyl chloride can be analyzed using EPA SW-846 Method 8260B, a
total HAP limit that includes vinyl chloride analyzed using that method
would be inconsistent with our separate limit for vinyl chloride alone,
which is based on data obtained using EPA Method 107. Since we have
developed a separate vinyl chloride limit, it is not necessary to
include vinyl chloride as part of the total HAP limit for stripped
resins. Because different test methods were used to develop the
emission standards, we are requiring compliance testing and sampling
based on the different test methods to demonstrate compliance with
those standards. The differences in the test methods (e.g., the way
that samples are collected and analyzed) caused the vinyl chloride
emissions to differ by orders of magnitude when the same sample was
tested using the two different methods. At proposal, variability was
assessed for total HAP using a 99-percent UPL calculation with the m
value set at 30 to represent 30 single daily total HAP values. For the
final rule, variability was assessed for total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP using the 99-percent UPL calculation; however, because we
are requiring compliance with the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
limits for all subcategories to be based on a single 24-hour period
taken once per month, we calculated the UPL for total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP using an m value of 1.
For the final rule, we revised the procedure for identifying an RDL
for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. At proposal, we determined
the RDL by identifying the highest test-specific MDL reported by the
top 5 best-performing facilities for total HAP in each subcategory that
was also less than the calculated average concentration of those top 5
best-performing facilities. For the final rule, the RDL for total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP was determined by identifying all of the
available MDL values for the top 5 best-performing facilities
regardless of any subcategory. From that combined pool of MDL data, we
calculated the arithmetic mean value. We then called the resulting mean
of the MDL values the RDL. As in the proposed rule, if 3 times the RDL
was greater than the calculated limit, we concluded that the MACT floor
limit does not account entirely for measurement variability and,
therefore, we used the value equal to 3 times the RDL in place of the
calculated MACT floor limit.
For the final rule, we excluded: (1) Copolymer resin data from Dow
Chemical's Midland, Michigan, facility due to the lack of a sampling
and analysis report documenting the analysis results, (2) data from
Georgia Gulf's Aberdeen, Mississippi, and Plaquemine, Louisiana,
facilities because the data reported from analysis using a modification
to EPA SW-846 Method 8260B could not be compared to data reported from
other PVC facilities that analyzed resin concentrations using an
unmodified EPA SW-846 Method 8260B and (3) selected reported HAP
concentrations from PolyOne's Henry, Illinois, facility due to
unexpectedly high reported detection limits that we determined were
inaccurate when compared to the reported detection limits from other
facilities.
Wastewater
For the proposed rule, the wastewater vinyl chloride concentration
limits were calculated using a 99-percent UPL calculation with an m
value of 1 to represent monthly compliance, based on a single sampling
event. The limits were calculated, based on data provided by facilities
in their CAA section 114 survey responses. These data represented a mix
of sampling data, engineering estimates and mass balance calculations.
Post proposal, industry submitted 1 year's worth of vinyl chloride
sampling data results from wastewater strippers at several facilities.
For the final rule, we recalculated the monthly vinyl chloride
concentration limits using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described
above, but the limits were calculated based on the actual vinyl
chloride sampling data provided by the industry.
We used the UPL to assess variability in the calculation of the
final limits for process wastewater. Despite the substantially larger
vinyl chloride concentration data set provided by the industry during
the public comment period, the percentile approach was not used as it
was for the stripped resin vinyl chloride limits because the final data
set was not sufficiently large (60 data points total, or 12 monthly
vinyl chloride values for each of the top five performing facilities)
and we had to make assumptions about the distribution of the data.
In the proposed rule, total HAP emission limits were based on a
beyond-the-floor option of complying with the HON flow rate and
concentration values. For the final rule, we calculated a total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP emission level at the MACT floor, based on
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP data reported by PVC facilities and
using the same calculation methodology used to determine the MACT floor
vinyl chloride emission limit with compliance demonstrated on a monthly
basis. In the proposed rule, the total HAP limit for wastewater
included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In the final rule vinyl
chloride concentrations were removed from the total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limit calculation, resulting in total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limits for process wastewater. This approach was
appropriate since we are requiring different test methods to
demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and the total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP limits.
The determination of the RDL value for vinyl chloride was revised
for the final rule as previously described for process vents. Industry
did not provide non-detect data for total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP; therefore, non-detect data were not incorporated in the total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP limit calculation.
Equipment Leaks
Based on changes to information reported by Shintech Freeport, as
discussed above, we revised the MACT floor analysis for equipment leaks
at existing sources. The results of this analysis showed that two out
of the best-performing five sources comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU level 2 requirements, and the remaining three complied with 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V. For the final rule, the MACT floor level of control
for equipment leaks at existing sources, taking the median of the best-
controlled five sources, is compliance with subpart V.
Comment: One commenter stated that in the proposed PVC MACT, new
source emission limits for process vents, the resin stripper and
wastewater were based on the best-performing emission source. However,
the commenter stated that the data sets used to establish the new
source MACT floor were not adequate or representative of the best
performance from the source.

[[Page 22874]]

The commenter added that the new source process vent MACT floor was
established by selecting the best performance of each individual HAP
from all facilities. The commenter asserted that, as a result, no
current facility can meet the control level represented by the proposed
new source MACT. The commenter requested that the EPA re-evaluate the
feasibility of the new source MACT floor analysis for on-going,
continuous compliance.
Response: At proposal and in this final rule, we used the data
available to us to conduct the new source MACT floor analyses. A
reasonable interpretation of CAA section 112(d)(3) is that MACT floors
may be established on a HAP-by-HAP basis, so that there can be
different pools of best performers for each HAP. Indeed, as illustrated
below, the total facility approach is not only not compelled by the
statutory language, but can lead to results so arbitrary that the
approach may simply not be legally permissible.
CAA section 112(d)(3) is not explicit as to whether the MACT floor
is to be based on the performance of an entire source or on the
performance achieved in controlling particular HAP. Congress specified
in CAA section 112(d)(3) the minimum level of emission reduction that
could satisfy the requirement to adopt MACT. For new sources, this
floor level is to be ``the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source.'' For existing sources,
the floor level is to be ``the average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources'' for categories
and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or ``the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources'' for categories
and subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. The language of the CAA
does not address whether floor levels can be established HAP-by-HAP or
by any other means. The reference to ``sources'' does not lead to the
assumption the commenters make that the best-performing sources can
only be the best performing sources for the entire suite of regulated
HAP. Instead, the language can be reasonably interpreted as referring
to the source as a whole or to performance as to a particular HAP.
Similarly, the reference in the new source MACT floor provision to
``emission control achieved by the best controlled similar source'' can
mean emission control as to a particular HAP or emission control
achieved by a source as a whole.
The EPA's long-standing interpretation of the CAA is that new
source (as well as existing source) MACT floors are to be established
on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.\3\ One reason for this
interpretation is that a contrary approach could yield least common
denominator floors--that is, floors reflecting mediocre or no control
rather than what the best performers have achieved. See 76 FR at 15622,
March 21, 2011; 61 FR at 173687, April 19, 1996; 62 FR at 48363-64,
September 15, 1997 (same approach adopted under the very similar
language of CAA section 129(a)(2)). Such an approach would allow a
source that is not the best-performer for certain pollutants
nonetheless to be considered the best performer overall, including for
those same pollutants for which it is demonstrably not the best
performer. It is even conceivable that the worst performing source for
a pollutant could be considered the best performer for all pollutants,
a result Congress could not have intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ We have done precisely that in this rule by setting emission
standards for vinyl chloride, THC (or total organic HAP), total non-
vinyl chlorideorganic HAP, CDD/CDF and HCI. See preamble section
V.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, if the best-performing five sources for vinyl chloride
were also the worst performing sources for HCl and the best performers
for HCl were the worst performers for vinyl chloride, under a total
facility approach the floor would end up not reflecting best
performance for HCl and vinyl chloride. In such a situation, the EPA
would have to make a value judgment as to which pollutant reductions
were most critical to decide which sources are best-controlled. See
Petitioners Brief in Medical Waste Institute et al. v. EPA, No. 09-1297
(DC Cir.) pointing out, in this context, that ``the best performers for
some pollutants are the worst performers for others'' (p. 34) and
``[s]ome of the best performers for certain pollutants are among the
worst performers for others.'' Such value judgments are antithetical to
the direction of the statute at the MACT floor-setting stage.
The central purpose of the amended CAA section 112(d) provisions
was to apply strict technology-based emission controls on HAP. See,
e.g., H. Rep. No. 952, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. An interpretation that
the floor level of control must be limited by the performance of
devices that only control some of these pollutants effectively guts the
standards by including worse performers in the averaging process,
whereas the EPA's interpretation promotes the evident Congressional
objective of having the floor reflect the average performance of best-
performing sources. Because Congress has not spoken to the precise
question at issue, and the agency's interpretation effectuates
statutory goals and policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation
must be upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
The EPA notes, however, that if optimized performance for different
HAP is not technologically possible due to mutually inconsistent
control technologies (for example, if HCl performance decreased as
organics reduction is optimized), then this would have to be taken into
account by the EPA in establishing a floor (or floors). The Senate
Report indicates that if certain types of otherwise needed controls are
mutually exclusive, the EPA is to optimize the part of the standard
providing the most environmental protection. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st
Cong. 1st sess. 168 (although, as noted, the bill accompanying this
Report contained no floor provisions). It should be emphasized,
however, that the District of Columbia Circuit has stated that ``the
fact that no plant has been shown to be able to meet all of the
limitations does not demonstrate that all the limitations are not
achievable.'' Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 885 F. 2d at
264 (upholding technology-based standards based on best performance for
each pollutant by different plants, where at least one plant met each
of the limitations but no single plant met all of them).
Such an approach would not meet the requirements of the CAA. For
these reasons, the EPA's approach is the appropriate methodology for
developing new source MACT floors and no further reevaluation is
necessary.
Comment: Several commenters argued that the EPA calculated the MACT
floor for vinyl chloride in stripped resin using data based on one
analytical method (EPA Method 8260B) that typically underreports vinyl
chloride and requires compliance with a different test method (EPA
Method 107) developed specifically for vinyl chloride.
Response: We agree with the commenters that there was a tension in
the proposed rule between the data used to establish the limits and the
test methods required for compliance. We specifically solicited comment
on this issue in the proposed rule. After consideration of information
received after the proposed rule, including the potential benefits and
drawbacks of both EPA SW-846 Method 8260B and EPA Method 107 in terms
of vinyl chloride analysis, we conclude that EPA Method 107 is more
appropriate for developing MACT floors and for determining

[[Page 22875]]

compliance with such standards for vinyl chloride in stripped resins.
EPA Method 107 was specifically developed for use in the PVC
industry and is the standard method for determining vinyl chloride
concentrations in not only stripped resin samples, but also wastewater
samples. The method provides for better extraction of the vinyl
chloride and, therefore, produces more reliable and accurate, albeit
nominally higher, concentration results. EPA SW-846 Method 8260B also
allows for the analysis of vinyl chloride, but the method was not
specifically developed for measuring vinyl chloride in PVC resin
samples and so has lower reliability and accuracy compared to EPA
Method 107 in this context.
Based on our analysis of data collected on vinyl chloride
concentrations in stripped resin samples analyzed using both EPA Method
107 and EPA SW-846 Method 8260B, concentration values obtained using
EPA Method 107 are consistently higher than the concentration values
obtained on the same resin samples using EPA SW-846 Method 8260B. As
such, compliance with a vinyl chloride limit based on data obtained
using EPA SW-846 Method 8260B could not necessarily be determined based
on compliance data obtained using EPA Method 107, making the Method 107
data inappropriate as a required basis for determining compliance with
the limit based on data obtained from EPA SW-846 Method 8260B.
In the final rule, we calculated the MACT floor-based limits for
vinyl chloride in stripped resins based on sampling data collected
using EPA Method 107. We also require demonstration of compliance with
the stripped resin vinyl chloride limits using EPA Method 107. In the
final rule, we have also revised the stripped resin and wastewater
limits for total organic HAP to separate vinyl chloride from those
limits, resulting in total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits. As
discussed above, EPA Method 107 is the preferred method for determining
vinyl chloride concentrations in PVC stripped resin and wastewater. The
EPA believes it would be inappropriate and inaccurate to determine and
require compliance with total HAP standards by combining results from
the two different methods because the EPA Method 107 data for vinyl
chloride would be artificially overweighted compared to the data for
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP based on analysis using EPA SW-846
methods, including Method 8260B, based on the significant differences
in sampling results when using the methods on the same samples.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the data used to set the
MACT floor are not based on normal operating conditions. One commenter
stated that testing pursuant to the CAA section 114 request was
conducted at the PVC production units in late 2009 and early 2010. The
commenter contended that, during this period, the industry was
operating by as much as 34 percent below its maximum production rates
over the prior 3 years. One commenter contended that the test
conditions were not representative of normal maximum operating
conditions for a stand-alone PVC producer under which these values were
determined and the EPA incorporated test results from much larger
thermal oxidizers operated well under their maximum design operating
conditions. To enable compliance with a reasonably proposed standard,
the commenter stated that the EPA should revise the final rule to allow
for new sources to come into compliance 3 years after the final rule is
promulgated.
One commenter contended that the proposed limits for vinyl
chloride, total organic HAP and HCl need to be factored-up to allow
facilities to operate at maximum production rates. The commenter added
that it is necessary to factor up proposed limits because the EPA's
compressed schedule for gathering data did not allow facilities to test
at maximum or near maximum operating rates. The commenter stated the
rule, as proposed, requires facilities to perform compliance tests
under hypothetical or actual worst case conditions (i.e., maximum
operating rates), which is not the same conditions used to generate the
data that set the standard for proposed vents. The commenter proposed,
as an alternative, that industry should be allowed to test under the
same conditions that were present during the stack tests conducted to
comply with the CAA section 114 request.
Commenters indicated that tests done at the OxyVinyls Deer Park and
Pasadena facilities and Formosa Plastics' Baton Rouge facility were
conducted under abnormal operating scenarios that are not indicative of
their normal operation. The commenters provided information on how the
operating conditions during the test differed than at normal
conditions. The commenters contended that the MACT floors should be
calculated without these facilities. The commenter contended that data
from that period are inappropriate for setting the MACT floor for
maximum representative operating conditions. One commenter stated that
during the data request for the MACT floor study, the EPA asked for
data (stack testing and 30-day monitoring) related to ``normal
operations'' in order to set up the MACT floor. However, the commenter
asserted that the proposed rule set up limits for compliance (standards
and operating limits) that are to be based on ``maximum operations''
from the subject facilities. The commenter contended that since the
MACT floor data are different from what is expected from facilities for
compliance with the standard, the EPA should either re-analyze the MACT
floor data to revise the proposed regulatory requirements or ask the
facilities for additional, and more specific, relevant data regarding
maximum operating conditions. Other commenters contended that the EPA
should have accounted for the testing variance that occurred by
sampling and testing during a period of lower throughput for the
industry. The commenters requested that the EPA adjust for lower
production levels in the final rule.
Response: We agree with commenters that the OxyVinyls Deer Park and
Formosa Baton Rouge facilities have PVC-combined process vents and
should not be included in the PVC-only MACT floor calculation.
OxyVinyls provided additional stack test information for the Deer Park
facility in response to our CAA section 114 request for VCM/EDC
facilities, and the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility has been included in
the PVC-combined MACT floor calculation. Further discussion regarding
the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is found in response to comments below
and responses regarding area sources. The Formosa Baton Rouge facility
has PVC-combined process vents, not PVC-only process vents. However,
they submitted test results in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA
section 114 survey and testing request that were collected while the
control device at the facility was controlling vent streams from the
PVC process only. Therefore, the test results are not representative of
a PVC-only facility due to an abnormally large amount of natural gas
combusted during the time of testing to maintain operation of the
thermal oxidizer. Furthermore, that facility was not included in our
CAA section 114 request for VCM/EDC facilities. Therefore, we have
excluded the Baton Rouge facility from any process vent MACT floor
calculations. We disagree with the commenters that the OxyVinyls
Pasadena facility be removed from the PVC-combined process vent MACT
floor calculation due to the facility experiencing a

[[Page 22876]]

malfunction during process vent testing. According to the source, the
specific nature of the malfunction at the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility
allowed a percentage of the process vent stream to bypass the control
device and enter the vent stack. As a result, both controlled and
uncontrolled emissions were measured during process vent testing;
however, the facility's measured concentrations were still low enough
to be included in the top 5 best-performing facilities for PVC-only
process vents for vinyl chloride, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic HAP.
Had the malfunction not occurred, pollutant concentrations would have
been even less than those determined during the time of testing and the
facility would have still been included in the top 5 best-performing
facilities. Therefore, we are including the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility
in the MACT floor calculation for process vents.
We agree with commenters that the data submitted to the EPA in
response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing
request were collected under operating conditions of less than maximum
capacity. Although commenters contended that the MACT floors should be
adjusted for lower production levels in the final rules, commenters did
not provide any empirical data or methodology to support modifying the
limits. As such, we have no basis on which to consider revising the
standards in response to this comment. We also agree with commenters
that the testing schedule for our CAA section 114 request was
compressed; however, commenters were not restricted from conducting
additional testing and providing additional data to the EPA
representing maximum operating conditions, yet, no such data were
submitted. Accordingly, the EPA will use the data submitted by
industry. Indeed, industry submitted 4 years of vinyl chloride resin
data after the CAA section 114 testing request was completed and during
the comment period.
We do not agree that the final rule should allow for new sources to
come into compliance 3 years after the final rule is promulgated. The
compliance date requirements for new and reconstructed sources are
specified in the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions at Sec. 63.6(b).
Comment: Several commenters argued against combining the PVC major
source MACT and area source GACT. One commenter argued that it was not
Congress' intent to combine MACT and GACT requirements for sources
listed in separate source categories, and that if this is going to be a
trend moving forward, the EPA should undertake a separate rulemaking to
identify and define, for public comment, the criteria it intends to use
for combining major and area source categories. The other commenter
stated that if the EPA chooses to make revisions to the limits for area
sources, they should first remove area sources from the PVC MACT floor
database and final rule and then reopen the PVC GACT rule to properly
consider the available technology and impact of proposed revisions on
small area sources. One commenter disagreed with the EPA's distinction
between synthetic and natural area sources, arguing that because the
CAA defines only two types of sources (major and area), any further
distinctions are unlawful. Thus, they argue, the EPA's artificial
distinction between true and synthetic area sources in order to include
synthetic area sources in the PVC major source MACT floor database is
unlawful and inconsistent with past agency practice. Furthermore, one
commenter argues that by choosing to include synthetic area sources in
the MACT floor analysis, the EPA is providing a strong disincentive for
facilities to voluntarily reduce emissions to area source levels
through enforceable permit limits. One commenter disputed all of the
EPA's arguments for including synthetic area sources in the MACT floor:
(1) The commenter noted that the EPA stated that Congress did not
expressly exclude synthetic area sources from MACT floor
determinations. The commenter argued that Congress did not need to
expressly exclude these sources because the sources were already
excluded because they are not part of the major source category.
(2) The commenter further noted that the EPA has previously
asserted that the definition of a major source, specifically the
reference to a source's potential to emit considering controls allows
the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and after
controls is relevant, such that synthetic minor sources may be
considered within the meaning of the major source definition and
included in the MACT floor determinations for categories for major
sources. The commenter argued that the definition of what constitutes a
major source allows a source's potential to emit to be determined while
``considering controls'' means only that a source may install controls
and render itself an area source.
(3) The commenter referred to a floor statement of Senator
Durenberger that the EPA cited to support its theory that the agency
must take into account the ``better'' performing sources in setting the
MACT floor. The commenter argued the statement demonstrates that it is
the better performing sources within the source category that must be
considered, and PVC area sources are not a part of the PVC major source
category.
One commenter added that for the EPA to ignore distinctions between
area and major PVC sources and use the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility in
MACT floor calculations is unlawful. The commenter contended that the
EPA incorrectly assumes the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is a major
source. The commenter stated that the facility is a ``true'' area
source in contrast to the CertainTeed Mossville synthetic minor area
source. The commenter contended that the CAA does not allow the
distinction the EPA makes between synthetic and natural minor area
sources, and the commenter provided detail of the regulatory history
concerning major and area source classifications. The commenter
provided additional detail regarding the classification of the
OxyVinyls Deer Park and Certain Teed facilities, referencing previous
communications with the EPA in which OxyVinyls informed the EPA that
the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is an area source. The commenter
contended that the EPA cannot consider any PVC area sources in the
major source PVC floor database because PVC major and PVC area sources
are two separate source categories under the CAA. The commenter
concluded by recommending the EPA recalculate the existing major source
MACT floors, excluding the Deer Park and CertainTeed facilities.
Response: In the final rule, we have developed separate standards
for major and area sources. We conducted a MACT floor analysis for
major sources and a GACT analysis for area sources. Further discussion
of the GACT analysis is provided in section V.H of this preamble.
We have reviewed data that OxyVinyls submitted to support their
comment that their Deer Park, Texas facility is a ``true'' or natural
area source. Based on the information provided, we are considering
OxyVinyls Deer Park facility to be an area source for purposes of this
rulemaking. Therefore, we are using data from this facility and from
the CertainTeed facility in Mossville, Louisiana to establish area
source GACT standards. However, we have also determined that the
OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is a synthetic area source for the
purposes of our analyses (without determining its status for any
compliance purposes) because the facility routes emissions

[[Page 22877]]

from their process vents to a thermal oxidizer in series with an acid-
gas scrubber. Without these controls, we would project the vinyl
chloride and HCl emissions to be above the major source threshold.
Similarly, for purposes of our analyses, we have determined that the
CertainTeed facility is a synthetic area source because it uses
controls, without which, their HAP emissions are projected to be above
the major source threshold.
Even though the area source facilities would be subject to the area
source standards, because they are synthetic area sources, we are
including the information from both facilities in our analyses
establishing the MACT floor level of control for major sources. As
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA maintains that
including synthetic area sources in calculating the MACT floor is
consistent with CAA section 112(d). Inclusion of synthetic area sources
in the MACT floor determinations is also consistent with the agency's
past practice in setting standards under CAA section 112(d). The
inclusion of such sources affected the MACT floor level of control for
the PVC-only HCl and PVC-Combined vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF process
vents emission limits. Inclusion of synthetic area sources in the MACT
floor determinations also affected the MACT floor level of control for
the stripped resin limit for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP in suspension and bulk resin. The vinyl chloride
and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP MACT floor emission limits for
wastewater were also affected by inclusion of synthetic area sources.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs the EPA to establish emission
standards for each category or subcategory of major sources and area
sources of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c) of the
CAA. Each such standard must reflect a minimum level of control known
as the MACT floor. (See CAA section 112(d).) However, section 112 of
the CAA does not specifically address synthetic minor or synthetic area
sources, which include those sources that emit fewer than 10 tpy of any
HAP or fewer than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP, because they use
some emission control device(s), pollution prevention techniques or
other measures (collectively referred to as controls in this preamble)
adopted under federal or state regulations. If not for the enforceable
controls they have implemented, synthetic area sources would be major
sources under section 112 of the CAA.
We believe the better interpretation of the statutory language and
legislative history is that synthetic area sources be included in MACT
floor determinations. First, the plain language of the statute makes
clear that our MACT floor determinations are to reflect the best
sources in a category or subcategory. For new sources in a category or
subcategory, the MACT floor shall not be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved, in practice, by the best-controlled
similar source, as determined by the EPA. (See CAA section 112(d)(3).)
For existing sources in a category or subcategory with fewer than 30
sources, the MACT floor may be less stringent than the floor for new
sources in the same category or subcategory, but shall not be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of the existing five sources (for which the
Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information)) in
the category or subcategory. (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) Thus,
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires that MACT floors reflect what the
best-controlled new sources and the best-performing existing sources
achieve in practice. These phrases contain no exemptions and are not
limited by references to sources with or without controls. Therefore,
they suggest that all of the best-controlled or best-performing sources
should be considered in MACT floor determinations, regardless of
whether or not such sources rely upon controls.
Furthermore, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA expressly excludes
certain sources that meet lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
requirements from MACT floor determinations for existing sources. (See
CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) The fact that Congress expressly excluded
such LAER sources, but did not also exclude synthetic area sources
suggests that no exclusion was intended for synthetic area sources.
Indeed, nothing in the statute suggests that the EPA should exclude a
control technology from its consideration of the MACT floor because the
technology is so effective that it reduces source emissions such that
the source is no longer a major source of HAP. (See 68 FR 2232, January
16, 2003, stating this rationale for including synthetic area sources
in the floor determination for the final NESHAP for municipal solid
waste landfills.)
Some commenters argue that because the PVC major and area source
categories are separate, synthetic area sources (and natural (i.e.,
non-synthetic) area sources) fall outside the regulated source category
and should not be considered in MACT floor determinations. The EPA
agrees that it listed PVC major and area source categories separately.
(See 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992, and 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002.)
However, the EPA disagrees that the CAA contemplates that synthetic
area sources must be treated like true area sources and excluded from
MACT floor determinations. Section 112(a) of the CAA defines a major
source as: Any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants * * *. (See CAA section
112(a)(1).) An area source is defined as any stationary source of
hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source. (See CAA section
112(a)(1).) In the major source definition, the EPA interprets the
reference to a source's ``potential to emit considering controls'' as
meaning that a source's potential to emit before and after controls is
relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be considered within the
meaning of this definition and included in MACT floor determinations
for categories of major sources. Including synthetic area sources in
MACT floor determinations ensures that MACT floors reflect the best-
performing sources, as the CAA requires. The EPA also considered
whether the reference to a source's potential to emit considering
controls in the definition of major source necessarily means a source's
potential to emit after controls have been implemented. While the EPA
believes it is possible to read the phrase in this manner in isolation,
such an interpretation would have the effect of excluding the best-
performing sources from MACT floor determinations and, therefore, would
be contrary to the statutory mandate that the EPA set MACT floors based
on the levels the best-controlled new sources and the best-performing
existing sources achieve in practice. The statutory reference to
potential to emit considering controls should be read in a manner
consistent with the other requirements of CAA section 112(d) to allow
for the consideration of synthetic area sources in MACT floor
determinations for major sources.
In addition, the legislative history suggests that synthetic area
sources should be included in MACT floor determinations. In a floor
statement, Senator Durenberger stated that in implementing section
112(d)(3) of the CAA, ``the [Senate] managers intend the

[[Page 22878]]

Administrator to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that [the
Administrator] has collected data on all of the better-performing
sources within each category. [The Administrator] must have a data-
gathering program sufficient to assure that [EPA] does not miss any
sources that have superior levels of emission control.'' (See
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional
Research Service, 103d Cong., S.Prt. 103-38 (prepared for the United
States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works), A Legislative
History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 870, November 1993,
emphasis added.) This statement underscores that Congress intended for
MACT floor determinations to reflect consideration of all of the
sources in each category with the best emission controls. It would be
inconsistent with Congress's intent and the plain language of the CAA
to exclude synthetic area sources--those sources with superior controls
that became synthetic area sources by implementing such controls--from
MACT floor determinations.
The inclusion of synthetic area sources in MACT floor
determinations is justified because of the reasons explained above.
Accordingly, we did not exclude synthetic area sources from MACT
floor determinations for major sources. For more information concerning
MACT floors for the final standards, see section V.E.2 of this preamble
and the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category, in the docket.
Comment: Several commenters stated that dispersion resin limits
should be based on measured concentration data and not calculated mass
figures. Two commenters stated that the vinyl chloride limit proposed
for dispersion resin was developed using a database that the EPA
aggregated from producer submissions on a mass (pounds per day dry)
basis and then re-divided by reported production volumes. The
commenters listed several problems with the data used to convert the
reported mass emissions to concentration limits by the EPA. The
commenters recommended that the EPA simply use the underlying measured
concentration data as the best and most accurate basis from which to
develop the PVC MACT.
Response: For the final rule, we have revised the MACT floor-based
emission limits for stripped resins. See section V.E.2 of this
preamble.
Comment: One commenter stated they agree with the EPA's procedure
for determining RDL. Another commenter contended that the EPA cannot
justify its floor adjustment by asserting an inability to measure
emissions below its triple-maximum-detection limit floor. The commenter
stated that the record includes multiple sources that used lower
detection limits; those sources demonstrate the feasibility of
measuring emissions at lower levels. The commenter added that the
agency specifies detection methods together with its standards; that
detection method should have a known detection limit with a well-
defined level of certainty. The commenter proposed that the agency
could, accordingly, calculate its floor and as a second and independent
step establish monitoring requirements that accommodate any imprecision
associated with measurement, or it could utilize a safety factor. The
commenter contended that the agency cannot, however, simply manipulate
the limits according to standards that appear nowhere in the CAA.
Another commenter questioned the way in which the EPA addresses
non-detects in air emissions. The commenter stated that multiplying by
a factor of 3 is not presented in a clear way to show the rationale
behind this calculation.
Response: As explained below, the final emissions limits were
established using the RDL, which is based on an average, not the
highest or lowest, of method detection levels for the best performing
units. We agree with the commenter's suggestion to calculate the floor
and then establish monitoring requirements to accommodate several
factors, such as measurement precision near the detection limit.
We agree with many of the comments related to treatment of data
reported as detection limit values in the development of MACT floors
and emissions limits. The probability procedures applied in calculating
the floor or an emissions limit inherently and reasonably account for
emissions data variability including measurement imprecision when the
database represents multiple tests from multiple emissions units for
which all of the data are measured above the method detection level.
That is less true when the database includes emissions occurring below
method detection capabilities regardless of how those data are
reported. The EPA's guidance to respondents for reporting pollutant
emissions used to support the data collection specified the criteria
for determining test-specific method detection levels.
Those criteria ensure that there is only about a 1-percent
probability of an error in deciding that the pollutant measured at the
method detection level is present when, in fact, it was absent. (See
Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of
Manual Stack Emission Measurements; American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste,
February 2001.) Such a probability is also called a false positive or
the alpha, Type I, error. This means, specifically, that for a normally
distributed set of measurement data, 99 out of 100 single measurements
will fall within 2.54 [sigma] of the true concentration.
The anticipated range for the average of repeated measurements comes
progressively closer to the true concentration. More precisely, the
anticipated range varies inversely with the square root of the number
of measurements. Thus, if [sigma] is the standard deviation of
anticipated single measurements, the anticipated range for 99 out of
100 future triplicate measurements will fall within 2.54
[sigma]/[radic]3 of the true concentration. This relationship
translates to an expected measurement imprecision for an emissions
value occurring at or near the method detection level of about 40 to 50
percent.
By assuming a similar distribution of measurements across a range
of values and increasing the mean value to a representative higher
value (e.g., 3 times MDL), we can estimate measurement imprecision at
other levels. For an assumed 3 times the MDL, the estimated measurement
imprecision for a 3-test-run average value would be on the order 10 to
20 percent. This is about the same measurement imprecision as found for
EPA Methods 23 and 29 indicated in the ASME Precision of Manual Stack
Emissions Measurements for the sample volumes prescribed in the final
rule (e.g., 4 to 6 dry standard cubic meters (dscm)) for multiple
tests.
Analytical laboratories often report a value above the method
detection limit that represents the laboratory's perceived confidence
in the quality of the value. This arbitrarily adjusted value is
expressed differently by various laboratories and is called limit of
quantitation (LOQ), practical quantitation limit (PQL) or RL. In many
cases, the LOQ, PQL or RL is simply a multiplication of the method
detection limit. Multipliers range from 3 to 10. Because these values
reflect individual laboratories' perceived confidence, and, therefore,
could be viewed as arbitrary, we decline to adopt the LOQ, PQL or RL
because such approaches in our view would inappropriately inflate the
MACT

[[Page 22879]]

floor standards. Our alternative to those inconsistent approaches is
discussed below.
Consistent with findings expressed in reports of emissions
measurement imprecision and the practices of analytical laboratories,
we believe that using a measurement value of 3 times a method's
detection limit established in a manner that assures 99-percent
confidence of a measurement above zero will produce a representative
method RL suitable for establishing regulatory floor values.
On the other hand, we agree with commenters that an emissions limit
determined from a small subset of data or data from a single source may
be significantly different than the actual method detection levels
achieved by the best-performing units in practice. This fact, combined
with the low levels of emissions measured from many of the best-
performing units, led the EPA to review and revise the procedure
intended to account for the contribution of measurement imprecision to
data variability in establishing effective emissions limits. In
response to the comments and internal concerns about the quality of
measurements at very low emissions limits especially for new sources,
we revised the procedure for identifying an RDL
The revised procedure for determining an RDL starts with
identifying all of the available reported pollutant specific method
detection levels for the best-performing units regardless of any
subcategory (e.g., existing or new, fuel type, etc.). From that
combined pool of data, we calculate the arithmetic mean value. By
limiting the data set to those tests used to establish the floor or
emissions limit (i.e., best performers), we believe that the result is
representative of the best-performing testing companies and
laboratories using the most sensitive analytical procedures. We believe
that the outcome should minimize the effect of a test(s) with an
inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was
too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive or the
procedure for determining the minimum value for reporting was other
than the detection level). We then call the resulting mean of the
method detection levels the RDL as characteristic of accepted source
emissions measurement performance.
The second step in the process is to calculate 3 times the RDL to
compare with the calculated floor or emissions limit. This step is
similar to what we have used before including for the Portland cement
MACT determination. We use the multiplication factor of 3 to reduce the
imprecision of the analytical method until the imprecision in the field
sampling reflects the relative method precision as estimated by the
ASME ReMAP study. That study indicates that such relative imprecision
remains a constant 10 to 20 percent, over the range of the method. For
assessing the calculated floor results relative to measurement method
capabilities, if 3 times the RDL were less than the calculated floor or
emissions limit (e.g., calculated from the UPL), we would conclude that
measurement variability was adequately addressed. The calculated floor
or emissions limit would need no adjustment. If, on the other hand, the
value equal to 3 times the RDL were greater than the UPL, we would
conclude that the calculated floor or emissions limit does not account
entirely for measurement variability. Where such was the case, we
substituted the value equal to 3 times the RDL for the calculated floor
or emissions limit, which results in a concentration where the method
would produce measurement accuracy on the order of 10 to 20 percent,
which is similar to other EPA test methods and the results found in the
ASME ReMAP study.
We determined the RDL for each pollutant using data from tests of
all the best performers for all of the final regulatory subcategories
(i.e., pooled test data). We applied the same pollutant-specific RDL
and emissions limit adjustment procedure to all subcategories for which
we established emissions limits. We believe that emissions limits
adjusted in this manner, which ensures that measurement variability is
adequately addressed relative to compliance determinations, is a better
procedure than the one applied at proposal, which was based on more
limited data. We also believe that the currently available emissions
testing procedures and technologies provide the measurement certainty
sufficient for sources to demonstrate compliance at the levels of the
revised emissions limits.
As for the commenter's suggestion that the EPA utilize a safety
factor, the commenter provided no additional explanation of what a
safety factor is, how it should be calculated and used, and no
additional information to calculate such a factor.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has set impossibly low
limits for CDD/CDF, given the detection limits for EPA Method 23.
Several commenters contended that, considering the body of available
evidence on this subject, the EPA should not set limits below 0.1
nanogram toxic equivalent (TEQ) per dscm for CDD/CDF. Several
commenters asserted that the CDD/CDF emission level of 0.023 nanograms
per dry standard cubic meters (ng/dscm) proposed for PVC facilities is
below levels that can be accurately measured.
Several commenters stated the EPA should impose work practice
standards rather than emission limits to control CDD/CDF emissions or
adjust the CDD/CDF standard to account for measurement uncertainty. One
commenter stated that the EPA's decision to propose such conservative
requirements for CDD/CDF testing is particularly surprising and
unjustified in light of the EPA's own estimates of the very low overall
reduction of CDD/CDF emissions that would be achieved by this rule. The
commenter also noted that the EPA recognized the CDD/CDF dataset
contains nearly 50-percent ``non-detect'' data. The commenter added
that previous MACT rulemaking efforts for other comparable subparts,
including the MACT rule for Hazardous Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE) or the Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT (40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDDD), typically allow for either a work practice
standard or for one-time CDD/CDF emissions testing of units subject to
the rule. In contrast, the commenter asserted that the EPA has not
proposed to allow for work practice standards and other emission
standards (e.g., control of temperature in the air pollution control
system and emission standards for vinyl chloride and HCl) to control
CDD/CDF emissions in the PVC MACT rule and instead, proposes to
establish CDD/CDF emission standards at or below the detection
capabilities of EPA Method 23 along with expensive testing for CDD/CDF
annually. The commenter further stated that because PVC-only plants
have similar CDD/CDF emissions, PVC-only plants should not be subject
to numerical limits for CDD/CDF emissions.
One commenter stated that section 112(h) of the CAA provides that
``if it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard * * * the Administrator may,
in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard'' and also cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875,
883 (DC Cir. 2007). The commenter stated that the EPA must first make a
determination that ``the application of measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations,'' not that it lacks emissions data to set a
limit. The commenter added they believe that PVC facilities face
precisely the type of

[[Page 22880]]

technological constraints in measuring for CDD/CDF that require the use
of work practice standards.
Response: The commenters are correct that, at proposal, 50 percent
of the CDD/CDF dataset was at non-detect levels. However, with the
addition of the EDC/VCM information submitted by industry in response
to the CAA section 114 request for the EDC/VCM industry, that number
has decreased to 38 percent. In comparison, 10 of the Boiler NESHAP
subcategories in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD contained CDD/CDF
datasets with non-detect values greater than 80 percent of the data,
with most having non-detects greater than 90 percent of the data. As a
result, the EPA determined that a work practice standard would be
appropriate for the major source Boiler NESHAP. Likewise, in the final
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards signed by the Administrator on
December 16, 2011, the EPA established work practice standards for CDD/
CDF because the significant majority of data from all the generating
units were below the detection levels of the EPA test methods. Such is
not the case for the PVC data. Given the significantly greater level of
detected information for PVC process vents it is apparent that CDD/CDF
can be detected in PVC process vent streams. Therefore, we maintain
that numerical emission limits are appropriate rather than work
practices to control CDD/CDF emissions from PVCPU process vents. As
discussed previously, the emission limits for CDD/CDF have been
revised, based on new data collected from EDC/VCM manufacturers and new
subcategories. We reviewed much larger data sets of EPA Method 23 CDD/
CDF test data and determined that representative detection levels equal
to 0.018 ng/dscm are achievable for sample volumes less than or equal
to 6 dscm. As a result, the final rule requires a CDD/CDF TEQ emission
limit of 0.038 ng/dscm for PVC-only process vents at existing and new
sources, 0.051 ng/dscm for PVC-combined process vents at existing
sources, and 0.034 ng/dscm for PVC-combined process vents at new
sources. We estimate that 10 out of 13 sources for which we have data
are able to meet the emission limits without additional control. We are
not prescribing a particular control technology for the remaining
facilities. Affected sources may use any control technique to meet the
CDD/CDF limits. We believe sources can use techniques such as enhanced
vapor recovery prior to combustion as a means to reduce chlorinated
compounds resulting in less chlorine available to form CDD/CDF. For the
impacts estimate, we estimated the cost for enhanced vapor recovery
(e.g., condensers) prior to combustion. Cost and emission reductions
estimation are documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and Emission
Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
(PVC) Production Source Category.

F. Emission Source Requirements

1. Process Vents
Comment: One commenter raised several issues with the proposed
definition of process vent. First, the commenter argued that the
definition of process vent is too broad and incorporates emission
points that are already regulated under other sections of the rule.
Specifically, the commenters contended that unloading and loading
lines, samples, wastewater collection and treatment systems and ``other
process components prior to the resin stripper'' should be removed from
the definition of process vent because including them in the process
vent definition is in conflict with the proposed definitions of batch
and continuous process vents. The commenter contended that wastewater
collection and treatment systems should be excluded because they would
already be regulated under the wastewater provisions specified in 40
CFR 63.11965 and 40 CFR 63.11970 of the proposed rule. In the case of
``other process components prior to the resin stripper,'' the commenter
contended that this is too broad a term, and at a minimum, the EPA
should clarify what is meant by this term in the context of the process
vent definition. Instead of the current proposed definition, the
commenter suggested the following definition for process vent:
``Process vent means batch process vent or continuous process vent.''
The commenter also proposed that the definitions of batch and
continuous process vents should provide an exclusion for gaseous
streams routed to a fuel gas system. The commenter stated that because
gaseous streams have a useful purpose and most other 40 CFR part 63
NESHAP exclude gaseous streams from the definition of a process vent,
they should not be considered process vents in this rule.
Response: In the final rule, we have revised the definition of
process vent, continuous process vent and batch process vent to provide
additional clarification, and we have added a definition for
miscellaneous vent. These revisions also provide additional consistency
with the changes made to the affected source definition, the definition
of PVCPU and the new definitions for PVC-only process vent and PVC-
combined process vent. See section V.I of this preamble for a complete
discussion of the revised and added definitions.
2. Equipment Leaks
Comment: Several commenters contended that the proposed requirement
to have double mechanical seals and double outboard seals on rotating
equipment is a beyond-the-floor control option and not a representation
of the current control level within the industry. The commenters stated
that there are no PVCPU that exclusively utilize double mechanical
seals throughout the PVCPU, but instead these technologies are used in
limited areas of the PVC production process and different technologies
are used in other areas. The commenters added that because the proposed
requirements are actually beyond-the-floor options, the revised rule
should allow subject facilities the option to comply with all the
provisions of the promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU MACT standard.
The commenters also contended that installation of further controls
will constitute a burden on facilities and will provide minimal
benefits in the form of potential HAP emission reductions. One
commenter pointed out that proposed 40 CFR 63.11915(b)(1) and (2) would
require pump seal installations that are optional under 40 CFR
63.1026(e) of subpart UU. Likewise, they argued, proposed 40 CFR
63.11915(b)(5) would require agitator seal installations that are
optional under 40 CFR 63.1028(e) of subpart UU. The commenter argued
that the EPA should revise the pump and agitator seal section to be
consistent with subpart UU.
Response: The proposed requirement that reciprocating pumps,
reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators be equipped with
double seals, or equivalent, was in error. In the final rules, we have
adopted the MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks for all
components (which is compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), which
gives affected sources the option of installing double seals, or
equivalent, or complying with the LDAR requirements of the equipment
leak standards.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed requirements for
PRD that any release is an automatic violation. The commenters
contended that this requires a costly retrofit with little additional
environmental benefit. Commenters contended that this provision is in
contradiction to a long-standing recognition by the EPA that

[[Page 22881]]

some PRD discharges are necessary; for example, they stated the current
rule recognizes that proper operation of PRD (including using emergency
relief valve discharges, currently exempted) is a necessary component
of safe and responsible plant operation. One commenter recommended that
the EPA revise the proposed language at 40 CFR 63.11915(c) to read
``[a]ny release to the atmosphere from a pressure relief device in HAP
service, except for an emergency relief discharge * * * constitutes a
violation of this rule.''
Several commenters added that in the affirmative defense
requirements, the EPA acknowledges safety-related relief valve
discharges. Commenters pointed out that the affirmative defense
criteria state in 40 CFR 63.11895(a): ``(4) If the excess emissions
resulted from a bypass of control device components or a process, then
the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage; * * * (6) All emissions monitoring and control
systems were kept in operation, if at all possible, consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices.'' In addition, some
commenters contended the low reportable quantity thresholds and Toxic
Release Inventory reporting are adequate incentives for facilities to
minimize discharge events, thus, allowing for affirmative defense is
appropriate. The commenters stated other MACT standards like the HON
and the Consolidated Air Rule also make allowances in the closed vent
system bypass rules that account for safety-related pressure valve
releases, and, thus, that in order to avoid unsafe conditions and
prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage, the
EPA should allow facilities to claim an affirmative defense for safety-
related releases.
Response: PRD releases are already prohibited at all PVC facilities
by the part 61 NESHAP, except when ducted to a control device meeting
the 10 ppm limit that applies to process vents or in an emergency
relief discharge (40 CFR 61.65(a)). In this CAA section 112(d) NESHAP
rulemaking, which builds upon the part 61 NESHAP, we have developed
emission standards that are continuous and consistent with Sierra Club
v. EPA. Commenters do not have any legal basis for failing to apply an
emission standard to PRD releases. We believe that PRD releases at PVC
facilities are caused by malfunctions or other occurrences. However,
such circumstances do not justify commenters' suggestion that no
standard applies to such releases. Further, the proposed affirmative
defense would be available for PRD releases caused by malfunctions.
Therefore, we are not exempting emergency PRD releases in the final
rule. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Therefore, the final rule provides that a PRD release, unless ducted to
a control device meeting the process vent limits, is a violation of the
emission standard.
Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities
of HAP. In that case, it is important to identify and control any
releases in a timely manner. Therefore, we are requiring you to install
electronic indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and
record the time and duration of each pressure release. In addition to
ensuring that significant releases are addressed, these requirements
will also alert operators to any operational problems with the PRD seal
that could be resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. Furthermore, if
danger is imminent and a PRD releases to the atmosphere, facilities
have the ability to assert an affirmative defense.
As discussed in the proposed rule, we are including an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits. See 40
CFR 63.12005 of the proposed rule (defining ``affirmative defense'' to
mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or
defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has
the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and
objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We
also are requiring that other regulatory provisions to specify the
elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met
all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule.
(See 40 CFR 22.24.) The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by
poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by
a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in
a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize
emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule and
to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA
(see also 40 CFR 22.77).
Comment: Several commenters argued that multiple systems and
procedures already exist at facilities to detect and remedy releases
from PRD and, thus, automatic release indicators are redundant. These
commenters stated retrofitting existing PRD with release indicators
would be costly, and installation of these devices will not result in
any emission reduction because they are indicators only. Commenters
contended that the PVC industry is currently subject to both
environmental and safety standards that adequately address concerns
with the detection of emissions from relief devices, such as 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V requirements in 40 CFR 61.242-4. Two commenters
pointed out that most PVC plants typically have rupture discs installed
below relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere, and monitor the
space between the rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on a routine basis
using a local pressure indicator and log this information for safety
purposes. One commenter contended that the EPA should at least perform
a cost-benefit analysis before finalizing this requirement. Several
commenters contended that given the cost, multiple systems currently
in-place, and the lack of any emissions reductions, the EPA should
delete the requirement for release indicators at proposed 40 CFR
63.11915(c).
Response: We acknowledge, based on information from the commenters,
that the PVC industry typically installs area monitors in addition to
rupture discs in series with relief valves. We also acknowledge other
commenters' statements that multiple systems and procedures exist to
detect and remedy releases from PRD, although they did not identify
specific systems or procedures for the EPA to consider. However, the
commenters did not suggest that the EPA adopt any type of

[[Page 22882]]

monitoring or recordkeeping requirement for PRD discharges, and
commenters' statements taken as a whole do not support a conclusion
that all PVC facilities currently install and use effective means to
detect and record PRD discharges for all of their PRD.
Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities
of HAP, and a large number of these releases that may occur may not be
identified and controlled in a timely manner, and may be due to repeat
problems that have not been corrected. In the final rule, PRD are
required to be equipped with indicators to identify and record the time
and duration of each pressure release. The requirement to install
indicators to identify and record the time and duration of each
pressure release is a compliance requirement to ensure the PRD
requirements in the final rule are met. They help ensure that any PRD
discharge, i.e., a release of uncontrolled HAP emissions, is
immediately known to the source operator and recorded for future
consideration by the facility or regulatory authority, so that remedial
or preventative action can be taken to minimize or avoid PRD discharges
in the future. The cost of the electronic indicators is incorporated
into the costs of the final rule. Our cost estimates are based on the
best information available to the EPA. While commenters indicated the
EPA costs were underestimated, they did not provide sufficient
information to revise our estimates.
Additional discussion on our decisions regarding PRD is found in
the response to the previous comment.
3. Resin
Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.11960(d)(2) and (3) of
the proposed rule states that: ``If an operating limit is a range, then
you must operate the stripper as close as possible to the maximum or
minimum operating limit for the resin stripper, whichever results in
higher emissions (i.e., lower emission reduction).'' The commenter
added that the purpose of an operating range is to allow for normal
variability and fluctuation inherent in the process, and by requiring
that compliance measurements be performed at operating conditions
resulting in the highest emissions, the agency is artificially
increasing both the chance that a single compliance measurement would
be out of compliance, as well as the overall emissions loading used to
evaluate the environmental performance of the unit. The commenter
submitted that such operating limits applied to resin strippers are
inappropriate and that where conditions exist that operating limits are
appropriate, proper measurement protocol would be to require sampling
within the normal operating ranges, not at a particular point within.
Response: In the final rule, for stripped resins as well as for
process wastewater, we are no longer requiring sources to comply with
operating limits and conduct continuous parametric monitoring. The
requirements to conduct resin sampling are sufficient to assure
compliance with the stripped resin limits.
In our review of the resin sampling data in conjunction with the
establishment of additional subcategories for stripped resins (see
discussion above), we recognize that while resin subcategories are
established at the type of resin, there are a multitude of resin grades
produced by facilities that fall under a general resin type. Some
facilities may produce on the order of hundreds of different grades for
any one particular resin type. For the same reasons outlined as to why
we are establishing additional subcategories for stripped resins in the
final rule, we recognize that there are also differences in the
formulations, recipes and processing conditions in the polymerization
reactors and/or resin stripper for different resin grades of the same
resin type. The establishment of resin subcategories at the grade level
would be impractical because an inordinate number of subcategories
would have to be established for hundreds, if not thousands, of
different grades of resin. As such, the MACT limits established at the
level of resin type will account for the inherent variability in not
only the formulation and recipes of the different resin grades, but
also the variation that must exist in the polymerization and stripping
of different resin grades in order to meet established resin
specifications and end-user requirements. The final rule requires that
compliance with the stripped resin limits be demonstrated based on a
24-hour arithmetic average of samples taken every 3 hours for
continuous strippers or at the end of each batch for batch strippers.
The frequency of resin sampling that is required under the final rule
is sufficient to ensure that continuous and batch stripping operations
are in continuous compliance with the stripped resin limits.
Therefore, requiring facilities to establish parameters on their
stripping operations that must be monitored and maintained to ensure
continuous compliance is not practical considering the multitude of
operating limits and ranges that would need to be established to cover
the production of numerous grades of resin. We further recognize that
given the establishment of resin limits at the outlet of the resin
strippers, we can allow flexibility in the operation of the strippers
while ensuring that the resin limits are being met as the resin exits
the stripper. Therefore, we have removed all requirements for
continuous parametric monitoring of resin strippers from the final
rule.
Comment: One commenter contended that a work practice standard is
needed for startup periods for the resin slurry strippers. The
commenter does not normally take samples for vinyl chloride within 2
hours of a PVC resin slurry stripper startup, but provided a table of
information in their comment letter on four investigations undertaken
on different days at different plants. The commenter stated that the
first three products tested were relatively easy-to-strip grades, while
the fourth product was a relatively hard-to-strip pipe-grade resin. The
commenter stated that a relatively short startup vinyl chloride spike
is present for easy-to-strip resins, but that for the higher volume
pipe grade resin with lower porosity (hard-to-strip), the startup spike
lasted at least 1 hour and, possibly, 2 hours. The commenter contended
that, based on the variability seen in the slurry stripper startups, it
is not possible to set a single numerical limit for startup conditions.
Therefore, the commenter requested that the EPA establish a work
practice allowing a 2-hour time period following startup when no vinyl
chloride samples shall be used for compliance purposes.
Response: The resin limits apply at all times including during
periods of normal operation and during periods or startup and shutdown.
The variability incorporated into the stripped resin limit calculation
for each resin type will sufficiently allow for periods of
concentration spiking during periods of startup. Compliance with the
stripped resin limits is based on a 24-hour arithmetic average of
samples taken every 8 hours for continuous strippers or at the end of
each batch for batch strippers. For a continuous stripper, samples must
be taken every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent.
We believe the 24-hour averaging time and 8-hour sampling frequency
will allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the stripped resin
limits. Finally, section 112(h) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to set
work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission limits only where
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. This statutory threshold is further defined to

[[Page 22883]]

mean that HAP cannot be emitted ``through a conveyance designed and
constructed to emit or capture such pollutant'' or ``the application of
measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' The
commenter did not provide any information to satisfy this statutory
prerequisite to support the application of work practice standards to
startup periods for resin strippers. Therefore, we disagree that a work
practice should be established in lieu of a numerical emission limit
for resin strippers during periods of startup.
4. Wastewater
Comment: Several commenters contended that owner/operators should
be exempt from the proposed initial and continuous vinyl chloride and
HAP sampling requirements if they can document, through process
knowledge or historical sampling data, that no HAP are present in the
wastewater stream. The commenters proposed that all documentation would
be available to an inspector. Commenters contended that the HON at 40
CFR 63.144(b) and (c) (subpart G) allows for the use of sampling, bench
scale data and/or process knowledge to determine concentration and flow
rate of a wastewater stream.
Response: In the final rule, we are requiring that for any process
wastewater streams that are not being treated prior to being discharged
from the PVCPU, facilities must sample those streams and determine if
treatment is required to meet the process wastewater limits for vinyl
chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. If, after the
initial sampling, treatment is not required to meet the limits, then
those streams must only be retested annually or when a process change
is made. The final rule contains limits based on the MACT floor for
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. The total HAP concentration and
flow rate cutoffs were included as a beyond-the-floor option at
proposal in an effort to make the wastewater requirements consistent
with other chemical sector rules, because the option was cost-
effective. Based on our evaluation of the total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limits, we determined that the 1,000 ppmw threshold for
total organic HAP, above which facilities would have been required to
comply with the HON wastewater provisions, was not appropriate for the
final rule as all streams must meet a limit for vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, that, when combined (i.e., 116.8
ppmw for existing sources and 0.30 ppmw for new sources), is much lower
than the previously proposed 1,000 ppmw threshold. We, therefore,
removed the total HAP flow rate cutoff and concentration cutoff, and
flow rate determination requirements from the final rule. Annual re-
sampling and testing of untreated streams is not overly burdensome and
provides more reliable results than engineering estimates or process
knowledge on which to determine whether at some point in the future, an
untreated stream must be treated to meet applicable limits.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the EPA should provide
exemptions for certain safety-related streams. The commenters contended
that certain events may occur at a PVCPU that require the release and
subsequent discharge of water, such as a fire or the use of eye wash
stations and safety shower, and these activities have little to no
chance of emitting HAP. The commenters stated that safety-related
streams are identified in HON at 40 CFR 63.100(f)(1) through (11). In
the absence of such exemptions, the commenters concluded that facility
employees will be confused or hesitant because of a compliance dilemma
at the worst possible time.
Several commenters asked for clarification about which in-process
wastewater streams require control and treatment. Several commenters
contended that maintenance wastewater streams should be regulated
independently of process wastewater. The commenters stated that the
capture of maintenance wastewater emissions is infeasible and thus
warrants use of a work practice standard. The commenters stated that
there are no known practical and effective methods for collecting and
controlling fugitive emissions from a wastewater stream, which can vary
considerably in HAP concentration and flow rate. Several commenters
argued that maintenance wastewater should not have a prescribed limit,
but should have work practices to remove residuals prior to generation.
A commenter stated that maintenance activities are non-routine, highly
variable activities that require the purging, clearing and cleaning of
equipment in preparation for safe handling by personnel. Some
commenters added that maintenance wastewaters include dilute
concentrations of HAP because industry takes efforts to remove residual
HAP before equipment is flushed. The commenters concluded that
quantifying a concentration to establish compliance with a limit would
be extremely difficult if not impossible, because the ``acceptable''
level would be based on the specific circumstances involved. The
commenters added that other MACT standards like the HON and MON provide
a separate management option for maintenance or turnaround wastewater.
The commenters contended that streams should be clearly defined by
the point of determination (POD) and not the proposed point of
generation (POG). The commenters added that the POG concept is not
defined or explained within either the VCM NESHAP or the proposed PVC
MACT. Other MACT standards related to chemical process industries
provide for sampling at the POD and have exemptions in the rule related
to the definition of wastewater.
Response: We agree with the commenters that it is not feasible to
collect wastewater resulting from maintenance activities at PVC
facilities such that it could be contained and routed to a wastewater
treatment system. We disagree that maintenance wastewater generation
activities are non-routine. We maintain that maintenance activities at
PVC facilities are routine, but those activities result in the
generation of wastewater in such a manner that it cannot be collected,
enclosed and routed to a wastewater treatment system or otherwise
managed in a controlled or enclosed system as process wastewater can.
PVC facilities reported a variety of different work practices used for
maintenance wastewater, but did not provide sufficient description or
information necessary to determine the effectiveness of any one work
practice alone or relative to other work practices. Furthermore, these
streams can vary considerably in HAP concentration. Therefore, it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for
maintenance wastewater and maintenance wastewater streams should be
regulated separately from process wastewater. In the final rule,
maintenance wastewater is not subject to the same requirements as
process wastewater but instead is subject to work practice standards.
We are incorporating into the final rule the maintenance wastewater
work practice requirements used in other EPA standards, such as the
HON. These work practice standards include preparing a description of
maintenance procedures for management of wastewater generated from the
emptying and purging of equipment in the process during temporary
shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair and during periods
which are not shutdowns. As in the HON, facilities can effectively
implement these work practices to prevent or mitigate the

[[Page 22884]]

emissions of HAP from wastewater generated during maintenance
activities. We also agree that certain safety related activities that
may generate a wastewater stream not be subject to the requirements for
process wastewater. Therefore, we have added separate requirements in
the final rule for maintenance wastewater streams. Furthermore, we have
clarified that certain safety-related streams are not considered
wastewater. These two revisions in the final rule are consistent with
wastewater provisions in other MACT standards, such as the HON and MON.
We have also removed all terminology related to ``point of generation''
and ``point of determination.'' These terms created confusion for
determining compliance with the standards. The final rule includes
simplified language regarding where process wastewater streams must be
tested to determine if treatment is required to meet the process
wastewater limits. In the final rule, we are requiring that wastewater
be measured immediately as it leaves a piece of process equipment and
before being mixed with any other process wastewater stream. We have
also clarified that the limits must be met before the process
wastewater stream is discharged from the PVCPU.
5. Heat Exchange Systems
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed heat exchange
systems monitoring methods are more restrictive than other 40 CFR part
63 NESHAP. The commenters suggested that the EPA broaden proposed leak
testing and compliance requirements for cooling water supply (in
closed-loop recirculation systems) and required heat exchange systems.
The commenters identified several alternate compliance methods: (1) EPA
Method 107, which focuses on vinyl chloride, not HAP, be included as a
compliance option. Commenters contended that EPA Method 107, which is
conducted on-site, allows for fast results (24 hours, while EPA SW-846
Method 8021B tests can take a week) and quicker repairs to any leaking
exchange systems; (2) EPA SW-846 Method 8260B, which commenters said
should replace EPA SW-846 Method 8021B. Commenters stated that EPA SW-
846 Method 8260B has a more comprehensive target chemical list; test
laboratories no longer have the equipment or personnel capable of
performing EPA SW-846 Method 8021B; and EPA SW-846 Method 8021B is not
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 63.14 as is the TCEQ Modified El
Paso Method.
Response: The leak action level for heat exchange systems is not an
independent limit on emissions, but rather is used as an indicator that
there may be a leaking component and as a trigger level to take further
action to remedy the leak. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the leak action level and associated repair requirements for heat
exchange systems are work practice standards under section 112(h) of
the CAA and not numerical emission limits, similar to requirements
applicable to equipment leaks. The proposed leak action levels and
monitoring frequencies were established based on the information
provided to us in responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114
survey and testing request of the PVC industry and subsequent requests
by us of the industry requesting clarification on heat exchange system
monitoring practices used in the industry.
At proposal, we required measurement of total strippable VOC for
detecting leaks of HAP into the cooling water, which are ultimately
emitted downstream. Based on comments received, we have added an option
for facilities to monitor their heat exchange systems using EPA Method
107, for vinyl chloride to monitor for leaks of total strippable VOC
into cooling water. Vinyl chloride is the primary raw material in the
manufacture of PVC and is present in all process streams. Therefore, if
either total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride leaks are detected,
repair of the leaks will control the leaks for all HAP. The process
streams are cooled by cooling water in non-contact heat exchangers. If
there is a leak of a process stream into the cooling water, for
example, through a broken heat exchanger tube bundle, vinyl chloride
concentrations would increase in the cooling water. A leaking process
stream that contains other HAP in addition to vinyl chloride would also
leak those other HAP into the cooling water. In a recirculating heat
exchange system that contains a cooling tower, the cooling water is
exposed to the atmosphere at the cooling tower. It is sufficient to
establish a leak action level for heat exchange systems at PVC
facilities based on a level of vinyl chloride that, if detected in the
cooling water, would indicate a leak of the process stream and all HAP
contained in that process stream into the system. Therefore, we
determined that for this industry, vinyl chloride is also an
appropriate indicator to determine if there is a leak in a heat
exchange system. Furthermore, EPA Method 107 is an established method
for the analysis of vinyl chloride in wastewater samples.
Our approach at proposal to determining a MACT floor for heat
exchange systems was to calculate the average (arithmetic mean) leak
action level from the five reported lowest leak action levels to
determine the floor for existing sources, and the single lowest leak
action level to determine the floor for new sources. Similarly, we
looked at the range of monitoring frequencies and selected the median
frequency from nine heat exchange systems for existing sources and the
most frequent monitoring period for new sources. We have revised the
leak action level at the MACT floor for existing sources based on the
median leak action level for total strippable VOC from the top five
lowest leak action levels reported. Similar to our approach to
determining the MACT floor for equipment leaks, it is appropriate to
evaluate the median of leak action levels instead of calculating the
arithmetic mean. We determined that the leak action level for total
strippable VOC for the existing source MACT floor is 50 ppbw. The
lowest leak action level reported was also 50 ppbw and represents the
revised MACT floor leak action level for new sources. Therefore, in the
final rule, the leak action level for total strippable VOC in cooling
water is 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both existing and new
sources. The methods used by facilities to monitor for VOC include the
TCEQ Modified El Paso Method and EPA Method 624. In the final rule, we
have revised the cooling water monitoring method from EPA SW-846 Method
8021B to EPA Method 624, but we have not changed the option to monitor
using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method.
To develop a leak action level for vinyl chloride, we looked at the
leak action levels and monitoring frequencies reported by facilities
that perform vinyl chloride monitoring using EPA Method 107. We
determined a vinyl chloride leak action level based on the median leak
action level reported by facilities that monitor for vinyl chloride.
Those leak action levels range from 50 ppbw to 5,000 ppbw with
monitoring frequencies between monthly and quarterly. To determine the
MACT floor level of control, we conducted an analysis similar to the
analysis conducted for equipment leaks; an analogous emission source
that is fugitive in nature where control is a work practice and not an
emission limit. The existing source MACT floor level of control for
equipment leaks was calculated using the average (median) level of
control of work practices at the best-performing five sources. We

[[Page 22885]]

determined that the median leak action level for heat exchange systems
was 50 ppbw. The MACT floor analysis results in a leak action level for
vinyl chloride for existing sources of 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring.
The lowest leak action level reported was also 50 ppbw and represents
the revised MACT floor for new sources. Therefore, in the final rule,
the leak action level for total strippable VOC in cooling water is 50
ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both existing and new sources. This
analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.
6. Other Emission Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the EPA has indicated that for ``other emission sources,''
requirements from part 61 NESHAP constituted the MACT floor level of
control and that, in turn, was used to set the proposed limits, which
requires complying with a vinyl chloride percent reduction. However,
the commenter added, the rule requires sources to comply with a total
HAP percent reduction, while the preamble only requires sources to
comply with a vinyl chloride percent reduction. The commenter contended
that sources have been using a method for sampling and detecting vinyl
chloride for years, and measuring total HAP will introduce an
additional layer of complexity to the compliance requirement. The
commenter requested that the EPA review the rule language and make it
consistent with the preamble language by replacing total HAP with vinyl
chloride.
Response: In the final rule, as in the proposed rule, we are
requiring work practices that require venting the emissions from
process components and equipment through a closed vent system to a
control device prior to opening to minimize emissions. This is
typically achieved by sweeping the component or equipment several times
with nitrogen to reduce the concentration of HAP in the vapor space of
the component or equipment. These work practices will reduce emissions
of all HAP present in the component or equipment prior to opening. In
the final rule we are setting standards for this emission source based
on vinyl chloride because the part 61 NESHAP, which constitutes the
MACT floor level of control for reactor and equipment openings,
requires work practices to specifically control vinyl chloride
emissions. It is appropriate to continue to set the standards based on
vinyl chloride because it will always be present at this emission
point, and controlling it will control all other HAP.
Comment: Commenters stated that gasholders should not be regulated
as storage vessels, but should be considered as surge control vessels,
due to their process functions. Specifically, commenters contended that
based on the CAA liquid storage definitions and associated
requirements, gasholders do not meet the definitions of ``fixed roof''
storage vessel or ``floating roof'' storage vessel and, thus,
recommended that gasholders be defined as surge control vessels in 40
CFR 63.12005. One commenter also agreed with the EPA that gasholder
seal water should not be regulated as wastewater.
The commenters stated that it is impractical to measure gasholder
fugitive emissions or route them to a stack, thus work practices should
be used to control these gasholder emissions. One commenter recommended
that the EPA regulate PVC MACT gasholders in the same way as other
surge control vessels at 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The commenters
stated that the PVC MACT standard for gasholders should be a
combination of equipment control and procedural requirements. The
commenter described studies undertaken to determine the feasibility of
certain control technologies like the use of floating objects to cover
the water seal, finding that though these approaches can reduce
emissions, they have drawbacks as well, and thus should be used in
combination with procedural standards.
One commenter provided information related to emissions and
controls for gasholders, as requested by the EPA in the preamble. The
commenter stated that gasholders are important for safety and stability
of the operation in the PVC process, with the process equipment
specifically designed around gasholders to maintain safe pressure and
gas flow to the closed vent and vinyl chloride recovery systems.
According to the commenter, any changes to the design of the existing
system could compromise safety procedures and would impose a burdensome
capital investment. Finally, the commenter recommended the use of
floating objects, such as balls, hallow disks, an oil layer or rubber
mats, in the gasholder water seal for emissions reductions, because it
is a flexible system that provides a consistent degree of control
without creating additional waste management concerns.
Response: In the proposed rule, we requested comment on techniques
to control emissions from gasholders. We reviewed the information
submitted by the industry and have concluded that it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard for emissions of vinyl
chloride or other HAP from the water seal and the outside of the
floating bell on gasholders. For PVC facilities that have gasholders,
they are an integral part of the vinyl chloride recovery process and
are connected to the closed vent system that collects and routes
process vent emissions from process components to the vinyl chloride
recovery system. After vinyl chloride recovery, any remaining process
vent gasses are routed through the closed vent system to a control
device. There are, however, emissions from gasholders that originate
from the water seal and the outer portion of the floating bell that are
fugitive in nature. The water seal contacts vinyl chloride and other
HAP contained in the gasholder, and thus, there is the potential to
emit HAP from the water in the gasholder seal and the thin film of
water that accumulates on the outer surface of the floating bell. It is
not technically practicable to route these emissions into or through a
conveyance designed and constructed to capture and control them to an
enforceable emission limit. Therefore, in the final rule, we are
promulgating a work practice and equipment standard consistent with the
provisions of section 112(h) of the CAA. In the final rule, we are
requiring facilities to install and maintain floating objects on the
surface of the gasholder water seal to minimize emissions of vinyl
chloride and other HAP. We are also requiring facilities to develop a
standard operating procedure for each gasholder to ensure that the
floating objects are properly maintained and that emissions are
minimized.

G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should remove CDD/CDF
CEMS from the rule. The commenters contended that CDD/CDF CEMS
technology is not well developed. One commenter stated that an EPA CDD/
CDF CEMS study noted that, within the range of 1-10 ng/dscm, TEQ
relative accuracy was reported between 23 percent and 75 percent. The
commenter contended that the technology would not be useful with such a
wide range of relative accuracy at the proposed limit. Another
commenter stated that the technology is not commercially available in
the United States. Another commenter indicated that monitors in use are
mainly in other countries. Another commenter added that several of the
available monitors are not continuous because they are not real

[[Page 22886]]

time and require using a third party lab for results.
Response: We agree with the commenter on the availability of CEMS
for CDD/CDF. CEMS for CDD/CDF and HCl are still being developed and the
EPA does not have specifications for the technology currently. In the
final rule, we have removed the requirement for CDD/CDF and HCl CEMS,
but have retained them as an option for existing and new sources once
performance specifications have been promulgated.

H. Area Sources

Comment: One commenter stated that, if the PVC MACT and GACT are
combined, the EPA needs to fully consider the cost of the MACT on area
sources and modify the requirements to minimize the burden on area
sources. The commenter stated that GACT standards required by CAA
section 112(d)(5) are different from MACT standards under CAA section
112(d)(3) and, though the technologies employed in these facilities are
similar, the EPA has not performed the required economic analysis in
setting GACT. One commenter stated that, given the burdens on reduced
workforces at smaller facilities, scaled-back requirements such as
reduced stack testing frequency or reduced CPMS requirements are
warranted and will have no negative impact on air emissions or
compliance at area source facilities. The commenter added that the
economic impact of the proposed PVC MACT on area sources makes these
measures necessary for the facilities to remain financially viable.
One commenter stated that the proposed GACT standard for process
vents for vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are not appropriate or cost
effective, based on small emissions reduction and high cost calculated
in the EPA's analysis. The commenter added that these limits are
redundant since total organic HAP includes vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF
and, thus, they contended that the vinyl chloride standards should be
eliminated.
One commenter made several comments regarding the pollutants
proposed for regulation for area sources under GACT. The commenter
stated that regulation of ``total HAP'' and ``CDD/CDF'' under the area
source GACT standard is not warranted because, although the agency has
discretion to regulate all urban HAP for area sources, total HAP is not
an urban HAP (they contend that classifying total HAP as an urban HAP
would make the list meaningless), and CDD/CDF is not a HAP at all
(thus, the EPA has no authority to regulate CDD/CDF under CAA section
112). Furthermore, the commenter contended that control technologies
already used by CertainTeed to control vinyl chloride also achieve
control of individual organic HAP. For CDD/CDF, the commenter pointed
out that the EPA's own analysis showed that the proposed regulation
would achieve little, if any, reductions. The commenter concluded that
there is no benefit to establishing a standard for total HAP or CDD/
CDF. The commenter added that the regulation of HCl under the area
source GACT standard is not warranted either. They contended that,
because the EPA has the discretion to revise the GACT standard only as
necessary, the EPA must first determine that regulation of HCl is
necessary. Instead, the commenter stated that the EPA seeks to regulate
HCl emissions and suggests that such regulation is ``appropriate''
simply based on the fact that such emissions ``are generated.'' In
light of this, the commenter concluded that the proposed GACT standards
for HCl should not be finalized.
Response: We proposed GACT standards for PVC area sources based on
the proposed MACT standards for major sources. For the final rule, we
have updated our analysis of area source GACT, considering comments
received, including our analysis of cost considerations. Our revised
GACT analysis assesses each PVC emission point (e.g., process vents,
stripped resin, equipment leaks, etc.) individually, for both existing
and new sources, to determine the appropriate level of control,
considering cost and emission reduction. The GACT analysis was
conducted for the same subcategories as major sources.
Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to promulgate
standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use
of generally available control technologies or management practices
[GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants.'' We issued such standards for PVC area sources in 2007.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to ``review, and
revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated
under this section no less often than every 8 years.'' With this
rulemaking, we are fulfilling our obligation to review and revise, as
necessary, the PVC Production area source standards. The 2007 NESHAP
for PVC Production area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD) are
based on GACT. The area source NESHAP set emission limits only for
vinyl chloride, which was the pollutant for which we needed the PVC
production area source category to meet our 90-percent obligation in
CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). In this final rule, we are
tightening emission standards for vinyl chloride under CAA section
112(d)(6). We are also establishing emission standards for CDD/CDF and
THC for process vents (with an alternative compliance limit for total
organic HAP) and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for stripped
resins and wastewater under CAA section 112(d)(5). We are also
requiring generally available management practices for PVC area sources
under CAA section 112(d)(5). We are not setting separate limits for HCl
from process vents at PVC area sources.
In this final rule, we have determined that area source emission
limits should be set for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, along with
limits for CDD/CDF and vinyl chloride, for process vents, and for total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and vinyl chloride for stripped resins
and process wastewater. We discussed earlier in this preamble our
specific reasons for establishing emissions limits for these pollutants
from PVC facilities. We also determined that it is appropriate to
provide a total organic HAP limit as an alternative to the THC limit
for process vents at area sources, just as we did for PVC major
sources. We disagree with the commenter who states that the EPA should
not establish a total organic HAP limit (or total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP limit for stripped resins and process wastewater) because
total organic HAP is not an urban HAP. We note that the commenter
concedes that the agency has discretion to regulate all urban HAP for
area sources. The commenter also does not dispute that PVC facilities
emit several organic urban HAP, beyond vinyl chloride.
Moreover, as the EPA has explained in other area source rules, the
agency has authority to regulate all HAP, not only urban HAP, from area
source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). See, e.g.,
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP proposed rule, 73 FR 58352,
58358, October 6, 2008, and final rule, 74 FR 56008, 56017-18, October
29, 2009).\4\

[[Page 22887]]

We are setting emission limits for total organic HAP for process vents
(and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for stripped resin and
process wastewater) for several reasons. First, the compliance measures
that we expect sources to adopt to meet the final limits are equally
effective at controlling emissions of non-urban organic HAP as urban
organic HAP. Second, there is little, if any, additional cost for
implementing those compliance measures at PVC process vents, stripped
resin and process wastewater. Third, we are applying the standards to
total organic HAP or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP because many
of the area sources emit a significant amount of non-urban organic HAP
in addition to urban organic HAP, for example, the nationwide ratio of
total organic HAP to urban organic HAP at affected area sources is more
than 3 to 1. Finally, we believe our approach is consistent with
certain industry comments that support using total organic HAP limits
as the best means of achieving HAP emission reductions under CAA
section 112(d) without fundamentally changing the PVC product being
produced for sale by these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ CAA section 112(d)(5) states that for area sources listed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c), the Administrator may, in lieu of
CAA section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit the agency's authority
to regulating only urban HAP emissions for which the category was
listed under CAA section 112(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have determined that area sources will not have to install
different controls or implement different compliance strategies and
will incur little, if any, additional cost to comply with the standards
for total organic HAP (and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP).
Moreover, the commenter does not refute that the expected compliance
measures in the PVC industry are equally effective at removing non-
urban organic HAP, as urban organic HAP. For all of these reasons, we
are applying these standards to process vents, stripped resin and
process wastewater at PVC area sources. In addition, the comment that
we should limit area source standards to only the urban organic HAP
conflicts with other industry comments advocating THC as a surrogate.
As we explained previously in preamble section V.C, THC is a reasonable
surrogate for controlling all organic HAP from PVC process vents.
However, while control of THC ensures control of all organic HAP (as
does the total organic HAP alternative), THC cannot differentiate
between organic HAP that is urban HAP and organic HAP that is not urban
HAP. The commenter's statement further conflicts with our determination
that a total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit is an
appropriate limit for stripped resins and process wastewater (see
discussion at preamble section V.C).
We disagree with the commenter's statement that CDD/CDF is not a
HAP. We are authorized to regulate the CDD/CDF class of HAP. While
dibenzofuran and 2,3,7,8-TCDD are identified by name as HAP in CAA
section 112, all CDD/CDF are polycyclic organic matter and, as such, we
have the authority to regulate these compounds.
We disagree with the commenter who stated reduced stack testing
frequency or reduced CPMS requirements are warranted for area sources.
We believe that these requirements are necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits regardless of the size of the
facility or the magnitude of emissions. Therefore, the same testing and
monitoring requirements apply to both major and area sources. Since the
PVC-only and PVC-combined process vent area source limits are based on
the facility in each subcategory, no additional controls would be
needed and no emission reductions would occur. Monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting would be the only costs. (See Tables 16 and
17 of this preamble.) We agree with the commenter that total organic
HAP includes vinyl chloride and dioxins and furans, but we disagree
that vinyl chloride standards should be eliminated, since vinyl
chloride emissions limits already apply to PVC facilities under 40 CFR
part 61, and they serve as a check on a unit's recovery process
efficiency and since physical measurement of vinyl chloride from
process vents occurs only every 5 years. In determining what
constitutes GACT for this final rule, we considered the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
PVC area sources by examining relevant data and information, including
information collected from PVC area sources. We also considered the
control measures applicable to PVC major sources to determine if the
control technologies and management practices are transferable and
generally available to area sources. As part of the GACT determination,
we considered the costs and economic impacts of available control
technologies and management practices on area sources which are
documented in the technical memorandum, Generally Achievable Control
Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available in
the docket.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate standards or
requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of generally
available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such
sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' Additional
information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the legislation
(Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT
as:

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the analogous source category to
determine if the control technologies and management practices are
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source categories at issue.
We determined new and existing area source standards for each
emission point by evaluating the current (also referred to as baseline)
level of control and control options beyond the current level of
control.
For each emission point, we determined the current level of control
for existing area sources, incorporating variability. If no area source
currently exists in the category or subcategory, the least controlled
major source, in each subcategory for each regulated pollutant, as
applicable, was analyzed as the baseline level of control for GACT. The
only two existing PVC area sources that we are aware of produce bulk
resin and suspension resin, respectively. No existing area sources
produce dispersion resin, suspension blending resin or copolymer resin.
However, if an existing PVC major source is able to become a synthetic
area source, e.g., by taking a federally enforceable limit on its
potential to emit, before the first compliance date of this rule, it
would be subject to area source rather than major source PVC NESHAP
requirements. Therefore, in order to develop GACT standards for other
stripped resin subcategories, we determined the baseline level of
control for these subcategories in which there is

[[Page 22888]]

no existing area source to be equivalent to that of the least
controlled major source, i.e., for the dispersion, suspension blending
and copolymer subcategories for stripped resins. For the suspension
blending and copolymer subcategories, there is only one major source.
So for these subcategories of stripped resin, the level of control of
the least controlled major source was the same as the major source MACT
floor level of control. In addition, gasholders are the only emission
source that are located at major sources, but not located at area
sources. Therefore, we determined that the baseline level of control
for gasholders is equivalent to that of the least controlled PVC major
source with a small gasholder. We believe that all future possible
existing area sources should be able to achieve these levels of
control, as we predict that most, if not all, such sources will be
major sources that limit their potential to emit to levels below the
major source thresholds before the first substantive compliance date of
this rule. See 42 U.S.C. 112(a)(1); 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
``potential to emit''). For equipment leaks, heat exchange systems and
storage vessels, we determined that the level of control was the same
as the major source work practice standards.
We are also establishing new source GACT. We have data from the two
existing area source facilities, and those facilities form the basis of
our new source GACT analysis. For the PVC-combined process vents, PVC-
only process vents, bulk resin and suspension resin subcategories, we
have data from one area source facility. For the other emission points
(except for dispersion resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer
resin discussed in the previous paragraph) both facilities are
equivalent in terms of their current level of control. For equipment
leaks, the CertainTeed Lake Charles facility and the OxyVinyls Deer
Park facility both comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Therefore, we
find that the level of control for new area sources is equivalent to
the level of control for existing area sources.
Control options beyond the current or baseline level of control for
existing sources were analyzed on a basis of cost effectiveness. We
determined the emission reductions, if any, associated with existing
PVC area sources meeting levels of control more stringent than the
current or baseline level of control. We then estimated the annual cost
of testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and any operating
and maintenance costs associated with control devices required to meet
the more stringent control levels. We developed a cost- effectiveness
estimate by dividing the annual cost of the more stringent control
level with the annual emission reduction. The control options analyzed
are as follows:
For PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and existing
area sources, for each subcategory, we analyzed two additional control
options beyond the current level of control. The first option was
requiring the current level of control, as discussed above, and the
testing and monitoring requirements for process vents at existing major
sources. The same types of controls are used at both existing area and
major sources. The testing and monitoring necessary to ensure
compliance with the emission limits and to ensure proper operation of
the control device are the same regardless of the size of the control
device. The second option was requiring meeting the emission limits for
existing major sources in addition to the testing and monitoring
requirements for existing major sources.
For PVC-only process vents at new and existing area sources, we
determined that the second option was not cost effective; instead, we
concluded that the first option was appropriate. We determined that the
major source testing and monitoring requirements are appropriate and
necessary to ensure that area sources are in compliance with the
process vent standards, whether those required standards are the
current level of control or major source standards. Therefore, we are
requiring PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and existing
area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the current level of
control and the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major
sources.
For stripped resins at new and existing PVC area sources, we
analyzed two additional control options beyond the current or baseline
level of control for each subcategory. The first option was requiring
the current or baseline level of control and the testing and monitoring
requirements for stripped resins at existing major sources. The second
option was meeting the emission limits for existing major sources in
addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for existing major
sources. For the bulk and suspension resin subcategories, we are
setting the stripped resin limits for new and existing area sources
equivalent to their current level of control, accounting for
variability, and testing and monitoring requirements for major sources
for each stripped resin subcategory. For dispersion resins, GACT is
based on the baseline level of control, i.e., the least controlled
major source and limits were developed for dispersion resins based on
data from that source. For the suspension blending and copolymer resin
subcategories, we are requiring the emission limits for existing major
sources since there was only one source in each of these subcategories
(i.e., the baseline level of control was the level of control the
existing major source) in addition to the testing and monitoring
requirements for existing major sources. Similar to process vents, we
determined that it is appropriate to require testing and monitoring
requirements for major sources to ensure compliance.
For process and maintenance wastewater at new and existing PVC area
sources, we analyzed three additional control options beyond the
current baseline. The first option was requiring the current level of
control and the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at
existing major sources. The second option was meeting the emission
limits for existing major sources in addition to the testing and
monitoring requirements for wastewater at existing major sources. The
third option was meeting the emission limits for new major sources in
addition to the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at
existing major sources. We determined that the second option of
emission limits for existing major sources was less stringent than
(i.e., not beyond) the current baseline for new and existing area
sources. We determined that the third option of emission limits for new
major sources were not cost effective for new or existing PVC area
sources. Therefore, we are requiring process and maintenance wastewater
at new and existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the
current baseline and the major source testing and monitoring
requirements. Similar to process vents, we determined that it is
appropriate to require testing and monitoring requirements for major
sources and necessary to ensure that area sources are in compliance
with the process and maintenance wastewater standards.
For equipment leaks and for heat exchangers at new and existing PVC
area sources, we analyzed one additional control option beyond the
current level of control. The additional option was meeting the
emission standards for equipment leaks and for heat exchangers at
existing major sources. We determined that the emission standards for
equipment leaks and heat exchangers at existing major sources are cost
effective for new and existing area sources. Therefore, we are
requiring new and existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting
the

[[Page 22889]]

equipment leak and heat exchanger standards at existing major sources.
For storage tanks at new and existing PVC area sources, we analyzed
one additional control option beyond the current baseline. The
additional option was meeting the emission standards for storage tanks
at existing major sources. We determined the emission standards for
storage tanks at existing major sources are cost effective for new and
existing area sources. Therefore, we are requiring new and existing
area sources comply with GACT by meeting the emission standards for
existing major sources.
For other emission sources, the current level of control is
emission standards for reactor and other equipment openings equivalent
to the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, which is also
equivalent to the major source level of control. We analyzed an
additional option for gasholders equivalent to the emission standards
for gasholders at major sources. The option was determined to be cost
effective for new and existing area sources. Therefore, we are
requiring that new and existing area sources comply with GACT by
meeting the emission standards for gasholders and reactor openings at
major sources.
Tables 16 and 17 present a summary of the control options analysis
for new and existing area sources.

Table 16--Summary of Control Option Analysis for Existing Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Control option analyzed annual cost Emission Cost
Emission point beyond current level of of reductions effectiveness
control compliance (tpy--total ($/ton total
($/yr) HAP) HAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents................... Major Source Testing and 10,890 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 180,245 0.257 701,814
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
PVC- combined process vents.............. Major Source Testing and 10,890 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 10,890 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Stripped resins (all subcategories)...... Major Source Testing and 10,615 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 10,615 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Process and maintenance wastewater....... Major Source Testing and 19,777 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 19,777 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
New Major Source emission 2,996,390 12.2 245,516
standards, monitoring and
testing.
Equipment leaks.......................... Existing Major Source 72,525 9.29 7,807
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Heat exchangers.......................... Existing Major Source 25,529 15.1 1,691
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Other emission sources................... Existing Major Source 3,108 0 \b\ $4,921
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Storage tanks............................ Existing Major Source 3,108 0 \c\ 2,000-
emission standards, 12,000
monitoring and testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Option does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable.
\b\ Emission reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting a model small gasholder with floating objects
to reduce emissions from the gasholder water seal. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness
was equal to $4,921 per ton of vinyl chloride reduced. We are not aware of any gasholders operated at existing
PVC area sources; therefore no emission reductions are shown.
\c\ Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW controls on model
fixed roof tanks meeting 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb vapor pressure and size parameters. The results of the
analysis showed that cost effectiveness ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option
depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted by PVC production facilities, no
storage vessels from affected sources that meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor
pressure levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels meeting capacity levels
storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels would be constructed at a new source.
$/yr--dollars per year.
tpy--tons per year.
$/Ton Total HAP--dollars per ton of total HAP.

Table 17--Summary of Control Option Analysis for New Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Control option analyzed annual cost Emission Cost
Emission point beyond current level of of reductions effectiveness
control compliance (tpy--total ($/ton total
($/yr) HAP) HAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents................... Major Source Testing and 10,890 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 180,245 0.257 701,814
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
PVC-combined process vents............... Major Source Testing and 10,890 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 10,890 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Stripped resins (all subcategories)...... Major Source Testing and 10,615 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 10,615 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Process and maintenance wastewater....... Major Source Testing and 9,888 0 (\a\)
Monitoring.
Existing Major Source 9,888 0 (\a\)
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
New Major Source emission 1,988,368 8.91 223,169
standards, monitoring and
testing.
Equipment leaks.......................... Existing Major Source 36,263 4.64 7,807
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Heat exchangers.......................... Existing Major Source 12,764 11.4 1,117
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.
Other emission sources................... Existing Major Source 3,032 0.616 4,922
emission standards,
monitoring and testing.

[[Page 22890]]

Storage tanks............................ Existing Major Source 1,554 0 \b\ 2,000-
emission standards, 12,000
monitoring and testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Option does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable.
\b\ Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW controls on model
fixed roof tanks meeting 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb vapor pressure and size parameters. The results of the
analysis showed that cost effectiveness ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option
depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted by PVC production facilities, no
storage vessels from affected sources that meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor
pressure levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels meeting capacity levels
storing materials that meet the vapor pressure levels would be constructed at a new source.
$/yr--dollars per year.
tpy--tons per year.
$/Ton Total HAP--dollars per ton of total HAP.

A detailed discussion of these options and the cost and impacts
estimated for them is found in the memorandum, Generally Achievable
Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is
available in the docket. The results of the GACT analysis are presented
in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble.
The summary of the area source requirements in the final rule is
discussed in section IV.I of this preamble.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's proposed equipment
leak standards. The commenters stated that the EPA's estimates of
baseline fugitive emissions are not valid and not representative of
CertainTeed's actual measured fugitive emissions from equipment leaks,
because EPA estimated the emissions from equipment leaks by applying
average emission factors instead of relying on actual measured data.
The commenter contended that because of these estimates, the EPA
grossly overestimated the level of fugitive emission reductions. The
commenter concluded that because of these overestimations, the cost of
the proposed Equipment Leak GACT standards cannot be justified by the
potential emission reductions.
Response: At proposal, we estimated baseline emissions and
reductions for fugitive emissions from equipment leaks using the 1995
EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. We agree with the
commenter that the 1995 factors yield conservatively high estimates of
actual emissions. As part of the technology review required by section
112(d)(6) of the CAA, the EPA has developed new emission factors for
equipment leaks that better represent fugitive emissions at chemical
manufacturing processes and petroleum refineries. Emission factors were
developed using facility data from the MON MACT floor development and
the EPA Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. (Please refer to the memorandum in
the docket titled Technology Review for Equipment Leaks for additional
information regarding the development of new emission factors for
equipment leaks.) Although the commenter provided annual fugitive
emissions from equipment leaks for years 2007 through 2010, the
commenter did not provide any equipment leak monitoring records, test
reports or additional documentation supporting their emission
estimates. Therefore, we have chosen to estimate fugitive emissions for
both major and area sources using the updated emission factors for
consistency across all PVCPU. Using updated emission factors and
equipment counts provided by CertainTeed where available, we have
updated the baseline emission estimate for fugitive HAP emissions from
equipment leaks at the CertainTeed facility to 10 tpy. We have also
updated our emissions reduction estimate to 4.64 tpy of HAP as a result
of the facility complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
We have also updated the total capital investment and total
annualized costs of the CertainTeed facility complying with 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU and installing and operating a PRD monitoring system
using equipment counts where provided by the facility. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum titled Generally Achievable Control
Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category in the PVC docket. The
total cost effectiveness is estimated to equal $6,840 dollars per ton
of total HAP; therefore, we are finalizing the requirements for area
sources to comply with subpart UU and install and operate a PRD
monitoring system.
I. Definitions
The following definitions have been revised since the proposal:
Batch process vent, conservation vent, continuous process vent, grade,
in HAP service, operating scenario, polyvinyl chloride, PVC production
process unit or PVCPU, polyvinyl chloride copolymer, pressure relief
device, process vent, solution process, type of resin and wastewater.
We have revised the definition of batch process vent to provide
consistency with our revisions to the definitions of continuous process
vent and process vent and to clarify that batch process vents must be
routed to a closed vent system and control device. We also clarify that
all emission episodes associated with a batch unit operation are part
of the batch process vent. We have also removed language from the
definition that excluded certain types of vents or vents from certain
components or equipment. In the final rule, batch process vent means a
vent from a batch operation from a PVCPU through which a HAP-containing
gas stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere except
that it is required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system
and control device. Emissions for all emission episodes associated with
the unit operation(s) are part of the batch process vent. Batch process
vents also include vents with intermittent flow from continuous
operations. Examples of batch process vents include, but are not
limited to, vents on condensers used for product recovery,
polymerization reactors and process tanks.

[[Page 22891]]

We have revised the definition of conservation vent to provide
additional clarification. In the final rule, conservation vent means an
automatically operated (e.g., weight-loaded or spring-loaded) safety
device used to prevent the operating pressure of a storage vessel from
exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the process
component. Conservation vents must be designed to open only when the
operating pressure of the storage vessel exceeds the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents open and
close to permit only the intake or outlet relief necessary to keep the
storage vessel within permissible working pressures, and reseal
automatically.
We have revised the definition of continuous process vent to
provide consistency with our revisions to the definitions of batch
process vent and process vent. We also clarify that continuous process
vents must be routed to a closed vent system and control device. In the
final rule, continuous process vent means a vent from a continuous
PVCPU operation through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the
potential to be released to the atmosphere, except that it is required
by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device
and has the following characteristics:
(1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any
continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU.
(2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control device
meets at least one of the following conditions:
(i) Is directly from any continuous operation.
(ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e.,
without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose)
through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU.
(iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy from a gas
stream that comes either directly from any continuous operation or from
any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without passing
through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through one or
more recovery devices within the PVCPU.
We have revised the definition of grade to specify resin ``type''
instead of resin ``classification'' since resins are first classified
by type, and types are further subdivided into grades. We have also
provided an example of a resin grade. In the final rule, grade means
the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it as a unique resin, i.e.,
the most exact description of a type of resin with no further
subdivision. Examples include LMW suspension resins and general purpose
suspension resins.
We have revised the definition of in HAP service. In the final
rule, in HAP service means that a process component either contains or
contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas
that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP, as determined according to
the provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d). For the purposes of this
definition, the term ``in organic HAP service,'' as used in 40 CFR
63.180(d), means ``in HAP service.'' The provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d)
also specify how to determine that a process component is not in HAP
service.
We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride to clarify
that it includes homopolymers and copolymers. In the final rule,
polyvinyl chloride means either polyvinyl chloride homopolymer or
polyvinyl chloride copolymer.
We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production process unit or (PVCPU) to remove components that are
storage tanks or vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and
wastewater collection and treatment systems, and add instrumentation
systems. Multiple PVCPU may be located at the same affected source and
share storage tanks, heat exchange systems and process wastewater
treatment systems. Therefore this shared equipment has been removed
from the definition of a PVCPU and is now included in the definition of
the affected source instead of the PVCPU. In the final rule, polyvinyl
chloride and copolymers production process unit or (PVCPU) means a
collection of process components assembled and connected by hard-piping
or duct work, used to process raw materials and to manufacture
polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl chloride copolymers. A PVCPU
includes, but is not limited to, polymerization reactors; resin
stripping operations; resin blend tanks; resin centrifuges; resin
dryers; resin product separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw
material charge vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing
tanks; finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished
resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; equipment
including pumps, compressors, agitators, PRD, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves and connectors and
instrumentation systems. A PVCPU does not include chemical
manufacturing process units, as defined in 40 CFR 63.101, that produce
VCM or other raw materials used in the PVC polymerization process.
We have revised the definition of polyvinyl chloride copolymer to
clarify that polyvinyl chloride copolymers can also be produced using a
suspension blending process. In the final rule, polyvinyl chloride
copolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from
the simultaneous polymerization of vinyl chloride and another monomer,
such as vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by
different processes, including, but not limited to, suspension,
dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending and solution processes.
We have revised the definition of pressure relief device to remove
the condition that devices actuated either by a pressure of less than
or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not
PRD. In the final rule, pressure relief device means a safety device
used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum
allowable working pressure of the process component. A common PRD is a
spring-loaded pressure relief valve.
We have revised the definition of process vent to provide
consistency with our revised definitions of batch process vent and
continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent. In the final rule,
process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the manifolding
of each and all batch process vent, continuous process vent or
miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected facility into a closed
vent system and into a common header that is routed to a control
device. The process vent standards apply at the outlet of the control
device. A process vent is either a PVC-only process vent or a PVC-
combined process vent.
We have revised the definition of solution processes to specify
that the process produces a polyvinyl chloride copolymer instead of
only a polyvinyl chloride resin. In the final rule, solution process
means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride copolymer resin that
is characterized by the anhydrous formation of the polymer through
precipitation. Polymerization occurs in an organic solvent in the
presence of an initiator where VCM and co-monomers are soluble in the
solvent, but the polymer is not. The PVC copolymer is a granule
suspended in the solvent, which then precipitates out of solution.
Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not used in the solution process.
Copolymer resins produced using the solution process are referred to as
solution resins.

[[Page 22892]]

At proposal, we defined a surge control vessel as part of any
continuous operation. However, based on industry comments, gasholders
meet the definition of a surge control vessel although gasholders may
receive and introduce material into batch processes in addition to
continuous processes. Therefore, we have modified the definition of a
surge control vessel to reflect the definition in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H and remove the specification that surge control vessels must
be used as part of a continuous operation and introduce material into
continuous operations. We have, however, modified the definition from
40 CFR part 63, subpart H, to specify that surge control vessels are
used within an affected source (and not solely a process unit) since
PVCPU may share gasholders. In the final rule, surge control vessel
means feed drums, recycle drums and intermediate vessels used as a part
of any continuous operation. Surge control vessels are used within an
affected source when in-process storage, mixing or management of flow
rates or volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous
operations. Surge control vessels also include gasholders.
We have revised the definition of type of resin to include
additional resin types identified by commenters after proposal,
specifically blending types of resin. In the final rule, type of resin
means the broad classification of resin referring to the basic
manufacturing process for producing that resin, including, but not
limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, bulk
and solution processes.
We have revised the definition of wastewater to mirror definitions
in other chemical sector rules, such as the HON, for consistency as
several facilities are currently subject to multiple wastewater
provisions. We have also specified what is not considered wastewater.
In the final rule, wastewater means process wastewater and maintenance
wastewater. The following are not considered wastewater for the
purposes of this subpart:
(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(3) Spills;
(4) Water from safety showers;
(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the
method of analysis that is used;
(6) Equipment leaks;
(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses
after cleaning lines; and
(8) Noncontact cooling water.
The following definitions have been added to the final rule:
gasholder, hard-piping, heat exchanger exit line, maintenance
wastewater, miscellaneous vent, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer, process
wastewater, process wastewater treatment system, PVC-combined process
vent, PVC-only process vent, suspension blending process, table 10 HAP,
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and wastewater stream.
We have added a definition for polyvinyl chloride homopolymers to
distinguish between homopolymers and copolymers. During the comment
period, industry provided additional resin data distinguishing
homopolymers and copolymers and is based largely on the proposed
definition for polyvinyl chloride. For reasons discussion in section
V.D of this preamble, we have set limits for five subcategories of
resin, including copolymers. Therefore, the new definitions are
necessary to distinguish between homopolymers and copolymers. The
definitions are based on the information provided in comments. In the
final rule, polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic
thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the polymerization of vinyl
chloride and has the general chemical structure (-H2CCHCl-
)n. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is typically a white
powder or colorless granule. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymers are
produced by different processes, including (but not limited to)
suspension, dispersion/emulsion, blending and bulk processes.
At proposal, we did not set separate limits for suspension blending
resins. During the comment period, industry provided additional resin
data regarding suspension blending resins. As described in section V.D
of this preamble, we have set limits for five types of resin, including
suspension blending. Therefore, a definition to distinguish suspension
blending resins from other resin types is necessary. The definition is
based on the information provided in comments. In the final rule,
suspension blending process means a process for producing polyvinyl
chloride resin that is similar to the suspension polymerization
process, but employs a rate of agitation that is significantly higher
than the highest range for non-blending suspension resins. The
suspension blending process uses a recipe that creates extremely small
resin particles, generally equal to or less than 100 microns in size,
with a glassy surface and very little porosity. The suspension blending
process concentrates the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically
designed to handle these small particles. Polyvinyl chloride resins
produced using the suspension blending process are referred to as
blending resins and are typically blended with dispersion resins.
At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. For the final
rule, we are subcategorizing process vents into PVC-only and PVC-
combined vents for reasons discussed in section V.D of this preamble.
Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the two process vent
subcategories. In the final rule, PVC-only process vent means a process
vent that originates from a PVCPU and is not combined with a process
vent originating from another source category prior to being controlled
or emitted to the atmosphere. In the final rule, PVC-combined process
vent means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is combined
with one or more process vents originating from another source category
prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere.
At proposal, we did not have information on gasholders and did not
propose standards for them. Following proposal, industry provided
comment on control options and cost information for gasholders and we
have included requirements for gasholders in the final rule. Therefore
it was necessary to add a definition for gasholders to the final rule.
The definition is based on information provided in comments. In the
final rule, gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is
floating in a vessel filled with water and is used to store gases from
the PVC production process prior to being recovered or sent to a
process vent control device. The bell rises and lowers as low-pressure
gases enter and leave the space beneath the bell and the water provides
a seal between the enclosed gas within the floating bell and the
ambient air.
At proposal, we did not define maintenance wastewater, but instead,
required that all wastewater be subject to the same proposed
provisions. We received comments from industry contending that
quantifying a concentration to establish compliance for maintenance
wastewater would be extremely difficult if not impossible because
maintenance activities are highly variable. Industry also noted that
HAP are minimized in maintenance wastewater by requiring that
components meet applicable opening standards before the introduction of
water for cleaning. The final rule includes provisions that address
process and maintenance wastewater separately; therefore, we have added
definitions for maintenance wastewater and process wastewater to the
final rule. The definitions are based on those provided

[[Page 22893]]

in the HON, because the wastewater streams are similar and, in some
cases, they are co-located. In the final rule, maintenance wastewater
means wastewater generated by the draining of process fluid from
components in the PVCPU into an individual drain system prior to or
during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated
during planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not
associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate
maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat exchanger tubing
bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components such as polymerization
reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, draining of low legs and high
point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system,
draining of portions of the PVCPU for repair and water used to wash out
process components or equipment after the process components or
equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere and has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.11955. In the final rule, process wastewater
means water that comes into direct contact with HAP or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product or waste product containing HAP, but that has not
been discharged untreated as wastewater. Examples are product tank
drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during a chemical reaction
or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic
products or reactants; water used to cool or quench organic vapor
streams through direct contact; water discarded from a control device;
and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels
containing organics. Gasholder seal water is not process wastewater
until it is removed from the gasholder.
In the final rule, wastewater stream means a stream that contains
only wastewater as defined in this section.
Also in the final rule, table 10 HAP means a HAP compound listed in
table 10 of final rule. Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP means, for
the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the measured concentrations of
each table 10 compound as calculated according to the procedures
specified in 40 CFR 63.11960(e) and 40 CFR 63.11980(b).

J. Cost and Emission Impacts

Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that costs for PRD are
greatly underestimated. One commenter estimated that retrofitting
existing PRD with release indicators will cost $5,000 per PRD. The
commenter stated that these costs include the actual measurement device
itself, installation labor, wiring back to the control room, input/
output cards in distributed control system (DCS) and initial
configuration (programming) of the DCS for alarms, logging, etc. The
commenter stated that with two facilities each containing over 100 PRD
the total cost would be over $1,000,000 to retrofit. Another commenter
also cited an estimate of $5,000 if a wireless pressure monitoring
device is used, or $10,000 per PRD if a more substantial flow
monitoring device is needed. The commenter estimated the cost for its
three facilities with 393 total PRD would range from $1,965,000 to
$3,930,000 to retrofit. A third commenter estimated a cost of $10,000
to retrofit each PRD, accounting for installation and integration into
the process control system. With approximately 200 PRD at a facility,
the commenter estimated a total cost of $2,000,000. One commenter also
noted that if the EPA is requesting pressure switches between the
rupture discs and the safety valves, this is ``relatively'' easy to
accomplish because it would require the instrument, communication
wiring, and a small amount of piping. This commenter also requested
that the EPA make it clearer whether flow indication or pressure
indication is required in the proposed rule. Additionally, one
commenter stated that multiple systems for release indication already
exist within PVC operations.
One commenter expressed concern about bypass flow indicator costs.
The commenter stated that a conservative estimate to install bypass
flow indicators is similar to that for flow indication on PRD,
approximately $5,000 per open ended line. Considering there are
hundreds of such lines, the commenter indicated that installation cost
could exceed $1,000,000 per facility.
Response: The EPA maintains that the capital cost estimate of
$188,900 and annual cost estimate of $26,900 per facility is
appropriate. Although commenters provided cost estimates for particular
facilities, costs provided in the comment letters were general in
nature, and the commenters did not provide documentation or detailed
cost analyses such that the provided estimates could be reviewed.
Therefore, we must estimate costs for all facilities using a consistent
methodology which is based on data collected by the EPA. We developed
our cost estimate for electronic PRD monitoring systems using the
Proposed Amended Rule 1173--Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical
Plants, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Other
commenters have stated that most PVC plants ``typically have rupture
discs installed below relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere,
and monitor the space between the rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on
a routine basis using a local pressure indicator and log this
information for safety purposes.'' The EPA maintains that a facility
must use a monitor to indicate an emission release to the atmosphere;
the type of indicator is left to the facility.
Comment: Several commenters took issue with the cost estimates
related to resin stripping. The commenters stated that current
technology will not allow facilities to meet the resin limits and
indicated that it will be necessary to develop new technology and the
associated costs will be much greater than the current EPA stripped
resin cost estimate. One commenter stated that millions of dollars will
be required to develop the technology and install equipment. Commenters
contended that improvements in PVC resin stripping beyond that which
can be achieved to meet new MACT floor HAP concentrations are not
feasible due to thermal degradation of PVC resins with elevated heat
histories (combination of higher temperatures and residence times). One
commenter added that steam is one of many components in the resin
stripping process, but it cannot be used as the sole or primary control
technique without seriously degrading the resin product. Commenters
indicated that some types and grades of resin are sensitive to heat
history such as that incurred by steam stripping and that color and
heat stability can be negatively impacted by excess heat history.
Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's conclusion that PVCPU would
only need to use additional steam in existing equipment to strip resin
to comply with the proposed vinyl chloride and total HAP emission
limits. Commenters also indicated that the effectiveness of certain
types of stripping technologies is not increased by the addition of
steam above energy balance requirements. Another commenter added that
PVC resins, some types and grades more than others, are sensitive to
heat such as that incurred by steam stripping. One commenter stated
that the EPA offered no substantiation for the claim that more steam in
existing equipment would provide for anything more than negligible
reductions in vinyl chloride and HAP levels in stripped resin. The
commenter added that two of the major

[[Page 22894]]

licensors of PVC resin stripping technology have said they would not
guarantee new equipment, let alone existing equipment, could meet the
proposed limit of 0.48 ppmw of vinyl chloride for all resins.
Commenters indicated that for some PVC grades, a significant column
retrofit or replacement would be necessary to meet more stringent resin
limits.
Response: For the final rule, we revised the methodology used to
estimate cost impacts for stripped resin based on the comments and
additional cost data provided by commenters. For the proposed rule,
costs of affected sources meeting the proposed concentration standards
for stripped resins were estimated by calculating the amount of
additional steam required to strip vinyl chloride and total HAP to the
proposed concentration standards. Based on comments and information
provided by commenters, we agree that costing additional steam may not
be the appropriate control technique to meet the stripped resin limits.
For the final rule, we estimated costs of affected sources
demonstrating compliance with the final stripped resin concentration
standards by calculating the cost of installing a new resin stripper,
based on information provided by commenters. We did not include annual
costs other than the amortized capital investment since affected
sources must currently pay for the operation and maintenance of their
current resin strippers. Additionally, we have revised MACT floor
calculations, as discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble. The
revised MACT floor and impacts analyses show that one facility will not
be able to meet the final limits. Based on information received during
the public comment period, we estimate the one facility not able to
meet the final limits will be required to install a new resin stripper
with a total capital cost of $10 million and a total incremental annual
cost of $944,000 per year.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the costs
imposed by wastewater compliance requirements. One commenter contended
that requiring monthly sampling for HAP in wastewater will impose undue
hardship on facilities when they are required to perform continuous
monitoring of stripper operating levels as well. This commenter
estimated an additional $65,000 per year from the monthly sampling.
Another commenter stated that due to the low wastewater vinyl chloride
limit, the cost for controls will be much higher. The commenter added
that simply adding steam will be insufficient and that it will be
necessary to replace the stripper at a cost of $3,400,000 with annual
operating costs of $636,000. One commenter recommended that the HAP
control requirements (testing, sampling, etc.) should be removed from
the wastewater rule since no emission benefit is achieved.
Response: Similar to our decision for stripped resins in the final
rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous parametric
monitoring of wastewater strippers. The requirements to conduct
periodic sampling for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP are sufficient to assure compliance with the stripped resin
limits. We have also established a revised limit for total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP from process wastewater. Monthly sampling and
analysis for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP is necessary to
ensure that the limits are being met on a continuous basis. We have
also substantially reduced the burden on facilities by only requiring
re-analysis of untreated streams once per year to ensure that those
streams are below the process wastewater limits and that they do not
require treatment. These changes have significantly reduced the burden
of the final rule.

K. Economic Impacts

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the economic
ramifications of the proposed rule to PVC producers and consumers. The
commenters stated that the EPA did not adequately quantify the effect
to the entire PVC supply chain when considering the rule and that as a
result many hardships and changes will occur. Commenters contended that
impacts will be cascaded down the supply chain and increase cost of
doing business. One commenter encouraged the agency to review and
carefully consider these impacts in light of the Obama Administration's
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
which calls for review and revision of regulations that stifle job
creation and economic growth.
Commenters argued the PVC MACT will impact a company's
competitiveness in the global market, where overseas PVC producers are
not subject to such stringent regulations. One commenter expressed
concern with the impact on construction of new plants; the proposed PVC
rule will pose a significant deterrent to any company that considers
citing new or reconstructed PVC manufacturing in the United States
causing additional harm to the economy. Several commenters expressed
concern that if enacted without significant revision, the PVC rule will
result in the closure of several plants in the United States.
One commenter representing the chlor-alkali industry provided an
example of how the PVC rule will impact related industries. The
commenter stated that as currently proposed compliance by United States
PVC manufacturing facilities with the MACT will cause a 4-percent-8-
percent reduction in demand in the domestic chlorine market. Based on
average industry pending patterns and labor-output ratios, in total,
between 3,300 and 6,600 jobs are at risk.
Commenters expressed concern regarding the economic impacts to
several industries, including: the wall covering industry, the vinyl
flooring industry, resilient flooring operations, pipe applications and
the vinyl siding products industry.
Several commenters contended that the PVC rule would result in loss
of performance characteristics and cost increases due to
discontinuation and substitution of a different quality or type of
resin for a previously formulated material, engineering changes, such
as retooling or the necessary investment in new or replacement
equipment due to the different types or qualities of resin and
different formulations, and loss of time as new formulations may take
years to develop and refine for their intended application. The
commenters contended that over 100 types and grades of PVC resins will
be affected, resulting in significant impact on how compounders,
converters and fabricators operate, potentially changing product
performance or raising costs. Other Two commenters stated that the net
cost to consumers in the United States and Canada for the substitution
of alternative materials for the PVC-based products that they currently
use would be almost $17.7 billion dollars per year, plus an additional
$5.6 billion in new investment to manufacture the incremental volume of
substitute material and an associated $2.8 billion per year in capital
recovery charges (details for numbers are in the document, The Economic
Benefits of Polyvinyl Chloride in the United States and Canada,
released by the American Chemistry Council and The Vinyl Institute in
2008). Several commenters expressed concern that imposing overly
stringent requirements on PVC resin manufacturers will significantly
increase imports from foreign sources and result in less domestic
competition.
Response: The final rule contains several revisions that reduce the
annual cost of the final rules by more than 75 percent from proposal
($19.7 million per year at proposal to $4.1 million per

[[Page 22895]]

year for the final rules, for major and area sources combined). These
revisions are discussed in section VI of this preamble. For the reasons
described above, we have revised subcategories and the MACT floor
calculation for stripped resins resulting in revised limits for
stripped resins. These changes result in stripped resin limits that are
achievable by 15 out of 16 sources without installation of additional
controls. Based on information received during the public comment
period, the EPA estimates the one facility not able to meet the final
stripped resin limits for major sources will be required to install a
new resin stripper with a total capital cost of $10 million and an
incremental annual cost of $944,000 per year. As a result, the final
rule does not impose a significant burden on the source category as a
whole. The commenters also did not supply any data or analysis to
justify their assertions regarding potential plant closures, negative
employment impacts, reduction in demand for chlorine, negative effects
on the PVC supply chain, possible increases in imports or other
economic harm.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the lack of
consideration given to small businesses. The commenter stated that the
EPA's Economic Impact Analysis identified only eight companies affected
by the proposed rule. The commenter added that because all eight of
these companies have more than 1,500 employees and annual revenues
above $2 billion, the EPA certified the proposed rule and declared no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As such, no regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared by the agency.
However, the commenter contended, the EPA did not host any ``SBREFA
panels'' prior to reaching this conclusion, preventing the small
business community from providing relevant input on the proposed rule's
impacts. The commenter stated that there will be higher costs due to
the PVC MACT which could be passed along the supply chain in the form
of higher prices to customers, many of whom may be small businesses and
less able to absorb regulation-induced price increases. The commenter
concluded that the EPA should amend its analysis to investigate the
secondary effect of the regulation on small businesses down the supply
chain.
Response: The analysis of impacts on small entities called for by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), is to cover small
entities directly affected by a rule. The RFA does not require indirect
or secondary impacts to be included in a small entity analysis. This is
consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the RFA as amended by
SBREFA. Only rules that will have a direct significant adverse economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities that are subject to
the rule require an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (see 5 U.S.C. sections 603-605).

L. Affirmative Defense

Comment: Several commenters opposed the EPA's affirmative defense
requirements. One commenter contended it is unlawful and arbitrary
because, although the EPA has eliminated its compliance exemption for
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, the agency's final rule
includes an ``affirmative defense to penalties that purports to bar
courts from imposing any penalties on sources that violate their
emission standards during a malfunction and satisfy certain agency
created conditions related to preventing malfunctions and controlling
malfunction emissions.'' This commenter contended that in this
proposal, the EPA acts outside of its delegated authority to limit
civil penalties available in citizen suits or its own enforcement
actions, and the proposal will impermissibly chill citizen
participation and the ability to win an effective, deterrent remedy in
CAA enforcement actions. The commenter added that the affirmative
defense would likely be used on a routine basis by polluters seeking to
avoid penalties, imposing a technical burden on citizens seeking civil
penalties against polluters.
Another commenter opposed incorporating affirmative defense
penalties into regulations. The commenter stated that the EPA has
discretion to decide what cases to prosecute, to consider settlements
and to request civil penalties in a case-by-case manner, as long as it
acts consistent with the CAA to protect clean air as its top priority
and, thus, the commenter believes that promulgating this affirmative
defense will allow polluters to claim that any violation of the
standard is due to a malfunction in order to evade the requirements.
Another commenter requested that if affirmative defense is
promulgated, the EPA specify the amount of compensatory damages should
apply to each malfunction, modify the rule so that affirmative defense
cannot be used by a specific facility or company more than once within
a set period of time, and require public reporting of malfunctions or
emissions exceedances.
Response: The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule
in an attempt to balance a tension inherent in many types of air
regulation to ensure adequate compliance, while simultaneously
recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits
may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source.
The EPA must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity,
rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous
basis.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that CAA section
112 emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations, on the one
hand, are required, there is also caselaw indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the District of Columbia Circuit
acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111, ``variant
provisions,'' such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup,
shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the
reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does not
support the `never to be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See
also, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.
Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club v. EPA and
the CAA 1977 amendments calls into question the relevance of these
cases today, they support the EPA's view that a system that
incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative
defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess
emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By
incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its
approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth
Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating
``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v.
EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But, see, Weyerhaeuser Co.
v. Costle, 590

[[Page 22896]]

F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach
is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the
flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are
``continuous,'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for
unplanned upsets and, thus, support the reasonableness of the standard
as a whole. The EPA is not adopting commenters' suggestion with respect
to compensatory damages or limits on the frequency of use of the
affirmative defense. It is not clear that EPA has authority to require
the automatic imposition of compensatory damages and even if such
authority exists, the EPA does not think automatic imposition of
damages is appropriate. Ensuring that malfunctions do not recur can be
handled through imposition of appropriate injunctive relief. In
addition, the EPA's view is that it would not be appropriate to limit a
source's ability to take advantage of the affirmative defense to one
time over a specified period of time, such as 10 years, given that the
affirmative defense is only available when the source could not have
prevented the excess emissions. With respect to commenters' suggested
reporting requirements, the reporting requirements in the rule
promulgated here already require malfunction reporting and the
affirmative defense provisions require that parties choosing to assert
the affirmative defense meet additional malfunction reporting
requirements. Any such reports submitted to the EPA are publicly
available pursuant to CAA section 114.

M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses

At proposal, we determined that the control technologies that would
be needed to achieve the proposed MACT floor levels for process vents
are generally the most effective controls available for reducing vinyl
chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/CDF and we estimated the costs for those
technologies for facilities that did not meet the proposed limits for
process vents. Furthermore, at proposal, we did not identify any
beyond-the-floor options for process vents. For the final rule, as a
beyond-the-floor option for process vents (i.e., PVC-only and PVC-
combined process vents), we assessed the costs and emission reductions
for existing major source facilities to meet the new source limits for
both process vent subcategories by using enhanced vinyl chloride
recovery (via an upgraded refrigerated condenser). Based on the
resulting analysis of the cost effectiveness, we determined it is not
appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for either subcategory of process
vents at existing sources. This analysis is discussed in the
memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.
For stripped resin at existing and new major sources, we analyzed
the same beyond-the-floor option as at proposal, and determined it was
not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for stripped resin at existing
and new major sources considering the cost and emission reductions of
this option.
For equipment leaks, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option at
existing sources of complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2,
instead of the MACT floor level of control, compliance with 40 CFR part
61, subpart V. Based on the results of the analysis, which are
presented in Tables 16 and 18 of this preamble, we determined that it
is appropriate that MACT for equipment leaks at existing and new major
sources require compliance with subpart UU level 2, considering the
cost and emission reductions of this option. The MACT floor level of
control for new sources, compliance with subpart UU level 2, was
identified as the most effective control of emissions from equipment
leaks. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor HAP emission reduction approaches
were identified for equipment leaks at new major sources. This analysis
is discussed in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble and in the
memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.
For heat exchange systems, we determined that the final leak action
level and monitoring interval are generally the most effective LDAR
program to control emissions from heat exchange systems. Therefore, no
beyond-the-floor options were identified for heat exchange systems at
existing or new major sources.
At proposal and for the final rule, we determined it is appropriate
for storage vessels at existing and new major sources meeting specific
vapor pressure and storage capacity parameters specified in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb to comply with the control requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW as a beyond-the-floor control considering cost and
emission reductions. This analysis is discussed in sections VI.A and
VI.B of this preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor
Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production
Source Category.
At proposal, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option for wastewater
of treating streams with HAP concentration greater than 1,000 ppmw (of
40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Table 9 HAP), and annual average flow rates
greater than 10 liters per minute. In the final rule, we determined the
MACT floor level of control for wastewater to includes concentration
limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. Consequently, we
analyzed a different beyond-the-floor options for wastewater, requiring
all currently uncontrolled process wastewater (e.g., wastewater from
scrubbers and heat exchange systems) to be conveyed to, and treated by,
a wastewater stripping unit. Based on the results of this analysis, we
determined it is not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for wastewater
at existing and new major sources considering the cost and emission
reductions of this option. This analysis is discussed in the
memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.
At proposal, we did not identify any beyond-the-floor options for
gasholders; however, we did solicit comments on control options for
gasholders. Based on the information provided in comments, for the
final rule, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option of minimizing
fugitive emissions by requiring the use of floating objects on the
surface of the water seal at existing and new sources. Based on the
results of the analysis, which are presented in Tables 16 and 18 of
this preamble, we determined that it is appropriate to require
gasholders at existing and new major sources reduce their fugitive
emissions by using floating objects on the surface of the water seal as
a beyond-the-floor control, considering cost and emission reductions.
This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor
Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production
Source Category.

VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rules

The impacts presented in this section include the impacts for PVC
production facilities to comply with the final rules, and with the
requirements of other subparts referenced by the final rules.

A. What are the air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions that are
expected to be realized through implementation of the final rules.
Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions estimated
for existing major sources. The table shows the emission reductions for
each pollutant and emission point. Table 18 of this preamble also
summarizes the emission

[[Page 22897]]

reductions for the beyond-the-floor options selected for existing major
sources (i.e., control of equipment leaks, storage vessels and
gasholders). The major source analysis is documented in the memorandum,
Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.
Table 19 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions estimated
for existing area sources complying with GACT. The area source analysis
is documented in the memorandum, Generally Achievable Control
Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride
and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. Both memoranda are
available in the docket. We do not project any new major or area
sources to be constructed in the 5 years following promulgation of the
final rules; no emission reductions were calculated for new sources.
The memoranda document emission reductions associated with model major
and area sources complying with the new source requirements.

Table 18--Emission Reductions of the Final PVC and Copolymers Production Standards for Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant emission reductions (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission point Vinyl
chloride Total HAP CDD/CDF (TEQ) HCl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major sources MACT floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents \a\.......................... 0.102 1.93 0.017 g/yr.................. 21.4
Stripped resins............................ 7.58 7.58 0........................... 0
Wastewater................................. 0 0 0........................... 0
Equipment leaks............................ 0 0 0........................... 0
Storage vessels............................ 0 0 0........................... 0
Other emission sources..................... 0 0 0........................... 0
Heat exchange systems...................... 101 101 0........................... 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major sources beyond the floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment leaks............................ 0 85.0 0........................... 0
Storage vessels............................ 0 0 0........................... 0
Other emission sources-gasholders.......... 22.0 22.0 0........................... 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Source total..................... 130 217 0.017 g/yr.................. 21.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission reductions for process vents are stated as total organic HAP; this value does not include HCl or
chlorine reductions.

Table 19--Emission Reductions of the Final PVC and Copolymers Production
Standards for Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl Dioxin/
Emission point chloride furan (g/ Total HAP
(tpy) yr) (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents.................... 0 0 0
Heat exchange systems............ 15.1 0 15.1
Stripped resins.................. 0 0 0
Wastewater....................... 0 0 0
Equipment leaks.................. 0 0 9.29
Other emission sources........... 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We estimated emission reductions of the final rule for each
emission point. For all emission points, we first calculated emissions
at the current level of control for each facility (referred to as the
baseline level of control), and at the MACT level of control selected
for major sources and the GACT level of control selected for area
sources. We calculated emission reductions as the difference between
the final level and baseline.
Major Sources
For process vents at major sources, we calculated baseline
emissions from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the
control devices, and HAP emissions using the final emission limits, in
combination with the vent stream flow rates measured during emission
tests.
For stripped resins at major sources, we calculated emissions
assuming that all the HAP remaining in the resin would eventually be
emitted from processes downstream of the resin stripper. This
assumption results in a calculation of the potential emissions at the
baseline stripped resin concentration levels, and final MACT
concentration levels. Emissions were calculated from the HAP
concentration in the stripped resin, and the resin production rate.
For wastewater at major sources, we estimated the emissions from
the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled wastewater streams, the
maintenance wastewater streams, and in the controlled wastewater
streams, and the wastewater flow rates or generation rates.
For equipment leaks at major sources, we estimated emissions for
the baseline LDAR program in use at each facility, and the final
equipment leaks requirements using model equipment counts, average
emission factors for leaking equipment and control efficiencies for
LDAR programs developed as part of the technology review required by
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA (see section V.H of this preamble for
additional detail). Model equipment counts were used because actual
equipment counts were not

[[Page 22898]]

collected as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and
testing request sent to the PVC industry. The survey requested
information only on regulatory LDAR programs currently in place at each
facility, and the costs for the facility to conduct the LDAR program.
For other emission sources, we estimated baseline emissions from
gasholders using information provided by industry during the comment
period. We estimated the emission reductions associated with installing
floating objects on gasholder water seals to reduce emissions of vinyl
chloride from those seals, as a beyond the floor option, based on
additional information provided by the PVC industry after the comment
period. We calculated emissions from reactor openings from information
provided in responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey
and testing request provided by affected sources.
We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on
emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey responses
provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from heat exchange
systems were calculated assuming that, once the LDAR program was in
effect, emissions would be eliminated due to the low leak action level
that is being finalized.
Area Sources
For process vents, we calculated emissions from the concentration
of HAP in the vent stream and the vent gas flow rates measured during
emission tests. For process vents in the PVC-only subcategory, we
calculated baseline emissions for the one area source in the
subcategory from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the
control device. We did not select an option more stringent than the
current emission level; therefore, there were no emission reductions
calculated. For process vents in the PVC-combined subcategory, we
calculated baseline emissions for the one area source in the
subcategory from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the
control. Since the existing PVC-combined area source currently meets
the GACT standards, we did not calculate a reduction of HAP emissions
associated with meeting the GACT emission limits.
For stripped resins, emissions were calculated from the HAP
concentration in the stripped resin, and the resin production rate. For
the one existing area source in the suspension subcategory, we
calculated emissions assuming that all the HAP remaining in the resin
would eventually be emitted from processes downstream of the resin
stripper. This assumption results in a calculation of the potential
emissions at the stripped resin concentration levels the affected is
currently achieving. Since the existing PVC area source in the
suspension resin subcategory currently meets the GACT standard, no
emission reductions were calculated. For the one existing area source
in the bulk resins subcategory, we estimated emissions downstream of
the resin stripper using emission rates submitted by the facility since
resin produced by the bulk process does not go through downstream
drying processes since the resin is in solid form after the
polymerization process.
For wastewater at existing area sources, we estimated the emissions
from the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled wastewater streams, the
maintenance wastewater streams, and in the controlled wastewater
streams, and the wastewater flow rates or generation rates.
For equipment leaks at existing area sources, we estimated
emissions for the LDAR program in use at both area sources and
emissions associated with complying with the GACT option. Emissions
were calculated using a combination of facility provided and model
equipment counts, average emission factors for leaking equipment and
control efficiencies for LDAR programs developed as part of the
technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA (see section
V.H of this preamble for additional detail). Model equipment counts
were used for equipment types for which counts were not provided by the
affected sources. The CAA section 114 survey requested information only
on regulatory LDAR programs currently in place at each facility, and
the costs for the facility to conduct the LDAR program; however, one
facility provided some, but not all equipment counts for which
emissions were estimated.
For other emission sources, we calculated emissions from reactor
openings from information provided in CAA section 114 survey responses
provided by affected sources. The existing PVC area sources currently
do not operate gasholders; therefore no emissions from gasholders were
calculated for area sources.
We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on
emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey responses
provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from heat exchange
systems were calculated assuming that, once the LDAR program was in
effect, emissions would be eliminated due to the low leak action level
that is being finalized.

B. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources to meet
the sampling and testing requirements, add the necessary controls,
monitoring devices, recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply
with the final rules. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall
total initial investment of $17.6 million for major sources and
$486,000 for area sources. We anticipate an associated total annual
cost of $3.94 million for major sources and $167,000 for area sources
(using a discount rate of 7 percent), in 2010 dollars, as shown in
Table 20 and Table 21 of this preamble. We do not anticipate the
construction of any new PVCPU in the next 5 years and, therefore, there
are no new source cost impacts. Estimated impacts of the new area
source requirements for a model facility are presented in the
memoranda, Costs and Emission Reductions of the MACT Floor Level of
Control for the Promulgated Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category and Cost and Emission Reductions of the Area
Source Level of Control for the Promulgated Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which are in the PVC
docket.

[[Page 22899]]

Table 20--Cost Impacts of the Final PVC and Copolymers Production
Standards for Existing Major Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total initial Total annual
Emission point cost (million cost (million
2010$) \a\ 2010$/yr) \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major sources MACT floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents........................... 3.38 1.72
Stripped resins......................... 10.1 1.13
Wastewater.............................. 0.075 0.165
Equipment leaks......................... 2.87 0.469
Storage vessels......................... 0.0165 0.0233
Other emission sources.................. 0.0165 0.0233
Heat exchange systems................... 0.0466 0.152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major sources beyond the floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment leaks......................... 1.02 0.238
Storage vessels......................... 0 0
Other emission sources--gasholders...... 0.0750 0.0222
-------------------------------
Major source total.................. 17.6 3.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total initial costs for facilities include the capital cost of
control equipment, testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting.
\b\ Total annual costs include: Annualized capital costs, annual cost to
operate control equipment, testing and monitoring costs, recordkeeping
and reporting costs, and repair costs.

Table 21--Cost Impacts of the Final PVC and Copolymers Production Standards for Existing PVC Area Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total initial Total annual Cost
Emission point cost cost effectiveness
(million$) (million$) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents................................................... 0.0963a 0.0218b (\c\)
Heat exchange systems........................................... 0.00743 0.0255 1,139
Resins.......................................................... 0.00864 0.0212 (\c\)
Wastewater...................................................... 0.00743 0.00198 (\c\)
Equipment leaksd................................................ 0.360 0.0725 7,807
Other emission sources.......................................... 0.00220 0.00311 (\c\)
Storage vessels................................................. 0.00220 0.00311 (\c\)
-----------------------------------------------
Area source total........................................... 0.484 0.167 (\c\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total initial cost for process vents includes initial recordkeeping and reporting costs (which include year
1 annual costs) and initial process vent testing.
\b\ Total annual costs for process vents include process vent testing and annual recordkeeping and reporting
(starting in year 2). Process vent testing is required every 5 years following the initial test; therefore,
annual testing costs have been divided by 5 to distribute costs evenly across the 5-year period.
\c\ Standard does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness is not applicable.
\d\ Total initial costs for equipment leaks include capital costs associated with complying with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU, the cost of an electronic PRD monitoring system and the initial recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Annual costs include operation of the PRD monitoring system, complying with subpart UU and
annual recordkeeping and reporting costs. Emissions and reductions of VOC, volatile hazardous air pollutants
(VHAP) and organic HAP, categorized as total HAP. Emissions, reductions and associated costs referenced from
memorandum--Cindy Hancy, RTI, to Jodi Howard, EPA/OAQPS, dated November 10, 2011, subject: Technology Review
for Equipment Leaks (draft format), which is available in the docket. Baseline emissions, reductions and costs
are adjusted based on equipment counts provided by CertainTeed.

Major Sources
For major sources, we calculated costs to meet the final level of
control for each emission point. For process vents, we estimated costs
to meet the final level of control for PVCPU that do not currently meet
the final emission limit, based on reported data. For such PVCPU that
currently use thermal oxidizers in combination with acid-gas scrubbers,
we estimate the cost of compliance through the use of enhanced vinyl
chloride recovery using a refrigerated condenser to reduce the quantity
of vinyl chloride combusted to meet the vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF
and THC. For PVCPU that currently use an absorber for vinyl chloride
recovery, cost calculations are based on routing the vent gas from the
absorber to a refrigerated condenser for enhanced organic HAP recovery.
Costs calculations also include capital and annual costs for testing
and monitoring of vinyl chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/CDF.
For PVCPU not currently meeting the final stripped resin limits,
costs to meet the final level of control are based on industry
estimates for a new resin stripper resulting in greater removal of
vinyl chloride and total HAP from the resin. Testing and monitoring
costs are also included in the costs to meet the final level of
control. All PVCPU are expected to meet the final wastewater stripper
outlet concentration limit. Therefore, initial and annual costs consist
of additional testing and monitoring required to demonstrate compliance
with the final emission standards.
For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by the EPA
were applied to each PVCPU that did not

[[Page 22900]]

already meet the final level of control (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU). The cost estimates include additional capital and annual cost
associated with facilities switching from compliance with 40 CFR part
61, subpart V to subpart UU. We estimated additional capital and annual
costs for an electronic PRD indicator, based on data collected for
other EPA projects.
For other emission sources, we calculated costs for complying with
the final, beyond-the-floor, level of control for gasholders. Capital
cost estimates were based on data provided by industry at the request
of the EPA following the comment period. Annual cost estimates were
based on standard factors for costs such as amortization, maintenance,
taxes and administration.
We calculated costs for complying with the final level for heat
exchange systems, based on information collected for other EPA
projects.
The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and
Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.
Area Sources
For existing area sources, we calculated costs to meet the final
level of control for each emission point. For each emission point, we
estimated costs of the major source testing, monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements.
For process vents in the PVC-only and PVC-combined subcategories,
we did not select an option more stringent than the current emission
level; therefore, there were no additional costs calculated.
For the one existing area source in the suspension subcategory and
the one existing area source in the bulk resins subcategory, we did not
calculate any additional costs since both facilities meet the
promulgated GACT standards.
For wastewater at existing area sources, we did not estimate any
additional costs since both facilities meet the promulgated GACT
standards.
For other emission sources, we did not estimate any additional
costs since neither of the existing PVC area sources operate a
gasholder.
For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by the EPA
were applied to the existing area source PVCPU. The cost estimates
include additional capital and annual cost associated with the facility
switching from compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V to 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU. We estimated additional capital and annual costs for a
PRD, based on data collected for other EPA projects.
We calculated costs for complying with the final level of control
for heat exchange systems, based on information collected for other EPA
projects. The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Generally
Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and
is available in the PVC docket.

C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy
impacts?

Major Sources
We anticipate major affected sources will need to apply additional
controls to meet the final emission limits. The energy impacts
associated with meeting the final emission limits would consist
primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air
pollution control devices. By our estimate, we anticipate that an
additional 5,300 megawatt-hours per year would be required for the
additional and improved control devices.
We anticipate secondary air impacts from major sources adding
controls to meet the standards. The combustion of fuel needed to
generate additional electricity would yield slight increases in
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. Since NOX and SO2 emissions and
electric generating units are covered by capped emissions trading
programs, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for
these pollutants for this rule from additional electricity demand. The
analyses are documented in the memorandum, Revised Secondary Impacts
for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source
Category, available in the docket.
Area Sources
We do not anticipate the area affected sources will need to apply
any additional controls with additional electricity or fuel
requirements associated with meeting the final emission limits.
Therefore, we have not estimated any additional secondary electricity
generation of air impacts for area sources.

D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards?

We performed an economic impact analysis for PVC consumers and
producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs estimated for
this final rule. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule
are annualized costs of less than 0.7 percent of their revenues, using
the most current year available for revenue data. Demand and supply of
PVC product is inelastic according to data included in the Economic
Impact Analysis. Based on this information, one can conclude that
demand will respond less than 1 to 1 with a change in output price, and
that supply is inelastic (i.e., will respond less than 1 to 1) with a
change in output price. Hence, based on these results and data, the
overall economic impact of this final rule on the affected industries
and their consumers should be low. For more information, please refer
to the Economic Impact Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymer NESHAP that is in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),
and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and emissions impacts associated with this action. This analysis is
contained in Cost and Impacts of the PVC and Copolymers Final Standard,
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037. A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized in section VI.B of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until the OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA

[[Page 22901]]

pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final rule requires maintenance inspections of the control
devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those required by the
General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the
specific information needed to determine compliance. The information
collection activities in this information collection request (ICR)
include the following: Performance tests, wastewater sampling, resin
sampling, LDAR monitoring, heat exchanger monitoring, PRD monitoring,
operating parameter monitoring, preparation of a site-specific
monitoring plan, monitoring and inspection, one-time and periodic
reports and the maintenance of records. Some information collection
activities included in the NESHAP may occur within the first 3 years,
and are presented in this burden estimate, but may not occur until 4 or
5 years following promulgation of the final rule for some affected
sources. To be conservative in our estimate, the burden for these items
is included in this ICR. An initial notification is required to notify
the Administrator of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify
storage vessels, process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks,
wastewater, heat exchange systems and other emission sources subject to
this subpart. A notification of performance test must be submitted, and
a site-specific test plan written for the performance test, along with
a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance test, the owner or
operator must submit a notification of compliance status that documents
the performance test and the values for the operating parameters. A
periodic report submitted every 6 months documents the values for the
operating parameters and deviations; a notification of inspection of
vessels and related inspection records; leaking and monitoring
information for equipment leaks; and leaking and monitoring data for
heat exchangers, if greater than leak definition. Owners or operators
of PVC facilities are required to keep records of certain parameters
and information for a period of 5 years. The annual testing, annual
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection for
major sources (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date
of the standards) is estimated to be $1.8 million. This includes 3,200
labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $0.3 million per year,
and total non-labor capital costs of $2.8 million per year. The annual
testing, annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection for area sources (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $323,000. This
includes 425 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $41,000 per
year, and total non-labor capital costs of $129,000 per year. These
estimates include initial and annual performance tests, conducting and
documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance
inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications and
recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the
cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in
section VI.B of this preamble. The total burden for the federal
government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standard) for major sources is estimated to be 809 hours per year,
at a total labor cost of $37,281 per year. The total burden for the
federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the standard) for area sources is estimated to be 160 hours per
year, at a total labor cost of $7,324 per year. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to
the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts
DDDDDD and HHHHHHH. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for
exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is
available to a source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and
requirements are satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative
defense is available only where the event that causes an exceedance of
the emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
63.2 (e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not
caused by poor maintenance or careless operation) and where the source
took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source
must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example,
the source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a
written report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the
conditions and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
The EPA considered whether there might be any burden associated with
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with the assertion of the affirmative defense. While recognizing that
any such burdens are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. The PVC
industry is currently required to comply with the part 61 NESHAP
requirement for releases from pressure relief valves and reactor manual
vent valves, which does not allow a discharge into the atmosphere from
these valves, except during an emergency. An emergency discharge means
a ``discharge which could not have been avoided by taking measures to
prevent the discharge.'' The owners or operators must, within 10 days
of any release from a pressure relief valve or a reactor manual vent
valve, submit a report to the Administrator. The report must include
the ``nature and cause of discharge, the date and time of the
discharge, the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the
discharge, the method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss, the
action that was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to
prevent future discharges.'' The costs for these reports are already
accounted for in the ICR burden estimate. Therefore, the EPA estimates
that there would be no additional costs for sources that choose to take
advantage of the affirmative defense for malfunctions since it is
already required for compliance with the rule. However, there may be
other malfunctions that are not currently regulated under the part 61
NESHAP that might prompt a source to take advantage of an affirmative
defense.
To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense
position adopted by a source (for those not already regulated under the
part 61 NESHAP), the EPA is including in the ICR the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion
of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's estimate for the
required notification, reports and records, including the root cause
analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time and effort required of
a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and
document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an
exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to
produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA.
The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

[[Page 22902]]

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a
technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated, and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The industry
in which the affected entities are in is NAICS 325211 (Polyvinyl
chemical resins manufacturing). The Small Business Administration small
business size definition for this industry is 750 employees or less for
parent entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on
small entities. To the EPA's knowledge, there are no small entities
subject to the final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The total annualized cost of this rule is estimated to be no more than
$4.1 million (2010$) in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA, because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule impacts
only PVC production facilities and, thus, does not impact small
governments uniquely or significantly.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

The action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule imposes requirements
on owners and operators of specified major and area sources, and not on
state or local governments. There are no PVC production facilities
owned or operated by state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The final rule
imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources,
and not tribal governments. There are no PVC production facilities
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements in this final
action would cause most PVCPU to modify existing air pollution control
devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or
install and operate new control devices, resulting in approximately
92,000 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this final action, the EPA does not expect any significant price
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should
not be affected at all by this final action since the action would not
affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts
on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes
that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any
adverse energy effects associated with this final action, they would be
minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This standard
is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F,
2G, 21, 107, RCRA SW-846, PS-8, PS-9 and the TCEQ Modified El Paso
Method.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that were
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the
standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All
potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the
VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation
data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative

[[Page 22903]]

methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures
in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
The search identified 17 other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, the EPA determined that 17 candidate VCS (ASTM
D3154-00 (2006), ASTM D3464-96 (2007), ASTM D3796-90 (2004), ISO
10780:1994, ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10,
ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM
D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), NIOSH Method 2010, Amines,
Aliphatic, ASTM D6060-96 (2001), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-1.2.3
(1998), ASTM D6735-01, ASTM D4855-97 (2002)) identified for measuring
emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission
standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important
technical and policy considerations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
An analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage
of minorities, percentages of the population below the poverty level,
and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, in
close proximity to the sources, are similar to the national averages,
with percentage differences of 3, 1.8 and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-
mile radius of concern. These differences in the absolute number of
percentage points from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent,
14.4-percent and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority
populations, populations below the poverty level and the percentages of
the population 17 years old and younger, respectively.
In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities
near affected sources, the EPA used census data at the block group
level to identify demographics of the populations considered to be
living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to
current emissions from these sources. In this approach, the EPA
reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the
locations of the expected emission reductions from this rule. The
review identified those census block groups with centroids within a
circular distance of a 0.5, 3 and 5 miles of affected sources, and
determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race,
income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of 3
miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been used in other
demographic analyses focused on areas around potential
sources.^{5 6 7 8} There was only one census block group with
its centroid within 0.5 miles of any source affected by the final rule.
The EPA's demographic analysis has shown that these areas, in
aggregate, have similar proportions of American Indians, African-
Americans, Hispanics and ``Other and Multi-racial'' populations to the
national average. The analysis also showed that these areas, in
aggregate, had similar proportions of families with incomes below the
poverty level as the national average, and similar populations of
children 17 years of age and younger.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of
People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
\6\ Mohai P. Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
\7\ Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and
Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for
Environmental Justice Analysis. Social Science Quarterly,
2002;83(1):281-297.
\8\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
\9\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in
Review of Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride,
September 2010, a copy of which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure
that interested communities have access to this final rule, are aware
of its content, and had an opportunity to comment during the comment
period. The EPA also ensured that interested communities had an
opportunity to comment during the comment period. During the comment
period, the EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental justice
newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs and
the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web
site (https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also
conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities, as
appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing general
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community)
for environmental justice community groups, and conducting conference
calls with interested communities. In addition, state and federal
permitting requirements will provide state and local governments, and
members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on
the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources affected
by the final rule.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this final rule and other required information to the
United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective April 17, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

[[Page 22904]]

Dated: February 13, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Adding new paragraph (b)(45).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(8), (b)(28), and (b)(54).
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(3).
0
d. Revising paragraph (i)(1).
0
e. Revising paragraph (n)(1).
0
f. Adding paragraphs (p)(8) through (p)(11) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, approved 1983, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.111,
63.2406, and 63.12005.
* * * * *
(28) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectometry, approved 2004, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 60.485, 60.485a, 63.772, 63.2351, 63.2354, and table 8 to
subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *
(45) ASTM D2879-96, Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, approved 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.111,
63.2406, and 63.12005.
* * * * *
(54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved 2003, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1349, table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part, and table 8 to subpart
HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Specifications (MPMS)
Chapter 19.2 (API MPMS 19.2), Evaporative Loss From Floating-Roof Tanks
(formerly API Publications 2517 and 2519), First Edition, April 1997,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1251 and 63.12005.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.309,
63.865, 63.3166, 63.3360, 63.3545, 63.3555, 63.4166, 63.4362, 63.4766,
63.4965, 63.5160, 63.9307, 63.9323, 63.11148, 63.11155, 63.11162,
63.11163, 63.11410, 63.11551, 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD of
this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, table 4 to subpart
JJJJJJ of this part, and table 5 to subpart UUUUU of this part.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water
Sources'' (Modified El Paso Method), Revision Number One, dated January
2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring,
January 31, 2003, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.654 and 63.11920.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(8) Method 8015C (SW-846-8015C), Nonhalogenated Organics by Gas
Chromatography, Revision 3, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-
846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.11960, 63.11980,
and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
(9) Method 8260B (SW-846-8260B), Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2, December 1996, in
EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
(10) Method 8270D (SW-846-8270D), Semivolatile Organic Compounds by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February
2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this
part.
(11) Method 8315A (SW-846-8315A), Determination of Carbonyl
Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 1,
December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart
HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDDDD--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.11140 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11140 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a) On or before April 17, 2012, you are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate a plant specified in Sec. 61.61(c) of this chapter
that produces polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or copolymers and is an area
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. After April 17,
2012, you are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own or
operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and copolymers process units
(PVCPU), as defined in Sec. 63.12005, that are located at, or are part
of, an area source of HAP.
(b) On or before April 17, 2012, this subpart applies to each new
or existing affected source. The affected source is the collection of
all equipment and activities in vinyl chloride service necessary to
produce PVC and copolymers. An affected source does not include
portions of your PVC and copolymers production operations that meet the
criteria in Sec. 61.60(b) or (c) of this chapter. After April 17,
2012, this subpart applies to each polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production affected source. The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production affected source is the facility-wide collection of PVCPU,
storage vessels, heat exchange systems, surge control vessels, and
wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated
with producing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before October 6, 2006.
(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11142(a), 63.11143(a) and (b), 63.11144(a) and 63.11145 for existing
affected sources.
(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in Sec.
63.11141(a).
(iii) You must meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b) and 63.11145 for
existing affected sources by the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11141(c), after which time you are no longer subject to the
requirements listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source between October 6, 2006, and May
20, 2011.

[[Page 22905]]

(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11142(a), 63.11143(a) and (b), 63.11144(a) and 63.11145 for new
affected sources.
(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in Sec.
63.11141(b).
(3) If you are a new affected source as specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section that commenced construction or reconstruction
between October 6, 2006, and May 20, 2011, then after April 17, 2012,
you are considered an existing affected source.
(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b) and 63.11145 for
existing affected sources.
(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in Sec.
63.11141(d), after which time you are no longer subject to paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(4) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after May 20, 2011.
(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), 63.11144(b), and 63.11145 for new
affected sources.
(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in Sec.
63.11141(e).
(iii) If components of an existing affected source are replaced
such that the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in
Sec. 63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then
the existing affected source becomes a reconstructed source and is
subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The
reconstructed source must comply with the requirements of paragraph
(b)(4)(i) of this section for a new affected source upon initial
startup of the reconstructed source or by April 17, 2012, whichever is
later.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act. After
April 17, 2012, the requirements of this subpart also do not apply to
chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in Sec. 63.101, that
produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw materials used in the
production of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers.
(d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under Sec. 70.3(a) or Sec. 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
(e) After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart and no longer has to comply with 40 CFR part
61, subpart F.
(f) After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also subject to the
provisions of other 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 63 subparts is
required to comply with this subpart and any other applicable 40 CFR
part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 subparts.

0
4. Section 63.11141 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11141 What are my compliance dates?

(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source as specified
in Sec. 63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart specified in Sec.
63.11140(b)(1)(i) by January 23, 2007.
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source as specified in
Sec. 63.11140(b)(2), then you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart as specified in Sec.
63.11140(b)(2)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) If you start up a new affected source on or before January 23,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in
this subpart not later than January 23, 2007.
(2) If you start up a new affected source after January 23, 2007,
but before or on May 20, 2011, then you must achieve compliance with
the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(c) If you own or operate an existing affected source as specified
in Sec. 63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart specified in Sec.
63.11140(b)(1)(iii) by April 17, 2015.
(d) If you own or operate an affected source that commenced
construction or reconstruction between October 6, 2006, and May 20,
2011, then you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions
of this subpart specified in Sec. 63.11140(b)(3) by April 17, 2015.
(e) If you own or operate a new affected source as specified in
Sec. 63.11140(b)(4), then you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart specified in Sec.
63.11140(b)(4)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) If you start up your affected source between May 20, 2011, and
April 17, 2012, then you must achieve compliance with the applicable
provisions in this subpart not later than April 17, 2012.
(2) If you start up your affected source after April 17, 2012, then
you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.

0
5. Section 63.11142 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11142 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
new and existing sources?

(a) You must meet all the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart
F, except for Sec. Sec. 61.62 and 61.63.
(b) You must comply with each emission limit and standard specified
in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your existing affected
source, and you must comply with each emission limit and standard
specified in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to your new affected
source.
(c) The emission limits, operating limits and work practice
standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.
(d) You must demonstrate initial compliance by the dates specified
in Sec. 63.11141.
(e) You must conduct subsequent performance testing according to
the schedule specified in Sec. 63.11905.
(f) You must meet the requirements of the applicable sections of 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(19) of this section, except for the purposes of complying with this
subpart, where the applicable sections of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHHHH, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (19) of this section
reference Table 1 or Table 2 to subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to
Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart.
(1) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11880(b).
(2) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.11890(a)
through 63.11890(d) and are subject to Sec. 63.11895.
(3) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11896, except
for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where Sec. 63.11896
refers to Sec. 63.11870(d) of subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to
Sec. 63.11140(b)(4) of this subpart.
(4) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11900, except
for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where Sec. 63.11900
refers to Sec. 63.11875 of subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to Sec.
63.11141 of this subpart.
(5) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11910 for initial
and continuous compliance for storage vessels.
(6) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11915 for equipment
leaks.

[[Page 22906]]

(7) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11920 for initial
and continuous compliance for heat exchange systems.
(8) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11925 for initial
and continuous compliance for process vents.
(9) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11930 for closed
vent systems.
(10) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11935 for
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission standards for process vents.
(11) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11940 for
continuous monitoring requirements for control devices required to
install CPMS to meet the emission limits for process vents.
(12) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11945 for
performance testing requirements for process vents.
(13) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11950 for emissions
calculations to be used for an emission profile by process of batch
process operations.
(14) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11955 for initial
and continuous compliance requirements for other emission sources.
(15) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11956 for ambient
monitoring.
(16) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11960 for initial
and continuous compliance requirements for stripped resin.
(17) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11965 through Sec.
63.11980 for general, initial and continuous compliance, test methods
and calculation procedures for wastewater.
(18) You must meet the notification and reporting requirements of
Sec. 63.11985.
(19) You must meet the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.11990 and 63.11995.

0
6. Section 63.11143 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11143 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a) All the provisions in part 61, subpart A of this chapter apply
to this subpart.
(b) The provisions in subpart A of this part, applicable to this
subpart are specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Sec. 63.1(a)(1) through (10).
(2) Sec. 63.1(b) except paragraph (b)(3), Sec. Sec. 63.1(c) and
63.1(e).
(c) Section 63.11885 specifies which parts of the General
Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you.

0
7. Section 63.11144 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11144 What definitions apply to this subpart?

(a) On and before April 17, 2012, the terms used in this subpart
are defined in the Clean Air Act; Sec. Sec. 61.02 and 61.61 of this
chapter; and Sec. 63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of
subpart A of this part, as specified in Sec. 63.11143(b).
(b) After April 17, 2012, terms used in this subpart are defined in
the Clean Air Act; Sec. 63.2; and Sec. 63.12005.

0
8. Section 63.11145 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.11145 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority such as a state, local or tribal agency. If the
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a state, local or
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated to a state, local or tribal
agency within your state.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA
and are not transferred to the state, local or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of an alternative means of emissions imitation under
Sec. 61.12(d) of this chapter.
(2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec. 61.13(h)
of this chapter. A ``major change to test method'' is defined in Sec.
63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 61.14(g)
of this chapter. A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.
63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to reporting under Sec. 61.10. A
``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.

0
9. Table 1 and Table 2 are added to subpart DDDDDD to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for an affected
For this type of emission point . . . And for this air source producing this You must meet this
pollutant . . . type of PVC resin . . . emission limit . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents \a\........... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 5.3 parts per million
by volume (ppmv).
Total hydrocarbons..... All resin types........ 46 ppmv measured as
propane.
Total organic HAP \b\.. All resin types........ 140 ppmv.
Dioxins/furans (toxic All resin types........ 0.13 nanograms per dry
equivalency basis). standard cubic meter
(ng/dscm).
PVC-combined process vents \a\....... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 0.56 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons..... All resin types........ 2.3 ppmv measured as
propane.
Total organic HAP \b\.. All resin types........ 29 ppmv.
Dioxins/furans (toxic All resin types........ 0.076 ng/dscm.
equivalency basis).
Stripped resin....................... Vinyl chloride......... Bulk resin............. 7.1 parts per million
by weight (ppmw).
Dispersion resin....... 1,500 ppmw.
Suspension resin....... 36 ppmw.
Suspension blending 140 ppmw.
resin.
Copolymer resin........ 790 ppmw.
Total non-vinyl Bulk resin............. 170 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
Dispersion resin....... 320 ppmw.
Suspension resin....... 36 ppmw.
Suspension blending 500 ppmw.
resin.
Copolymer resin........ 1,900 ppmw.
Process Wastewater................... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 2.1 ppmw.

[[Page 22907]]

Total non-vinyl All resin types........ 0.018 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP
limit.

Table 2 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for New Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for an affected
For this type of emission point . . . And for this air source producing this You must meet this
pollutant . . . type of PVC resin . . . emission limit . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents \a\........... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 5.3 parts per million
by volume (ppmv).
Total hydrocarbons..... All resin types........ 46 ppmv measured as
propane
Total organic HAP \b\.. All resin types........ 140 ppmv.
Dioxins/furans (toxic All resin types........ 0.13 nanograms per dry
equivalency basis). standard cubic meter
(ng/dscm).
PVC-combined process vents \a\....... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 0.56 ppmv.
Total hydrocarbons..... All resin types........ 2.3 ppmv measured as
propane
Total organic HAP \b\.. All resin types........ 29 ppmv
Dioxins/furans (toxic All resin types........ 0.076 ng/dscm.
equivalency basis).
Stripped resin....................... Vinyl chloride......... Bulk resin............. 7.1 parts per million
by weight (ppmw).
Dispersion resin....... 1,500 ppmw.
Suspension resin....... 36 ppmw.
Suspension blending 140 ppmw.
resin.
Copolymer resin........ 790 ppmw.
Total non-vinyl Bulk resin............. 170 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
Dispersion resin....... 320 ppmw.
Suspension resin....... 36 ppmw.
Suspension blending 500 ppmw.
resin.
Copolymer resin........ 1,900 ppmw.
Process Wastewater................... Vinyl chloride......... All resin types........ 2.1 ppmw.
Total non-vinyl All resin types........ 0.018 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP
limit.

0
10. Part 63 is amended by adding and reserving subparts FFFFFFF and
GGGGGGG, and adding subpart HHHHHHH, to read as follows:

Subparts FFFFFFF and GGGGGGG--[Reserved]

Subpart HHHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.11860 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart?
63.11871 What is the relationship to 40 CFR part 61, subpart F?
63.11872 What is the relationship to other subparts in this part?
63.11875 When must I comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards

63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards must I
meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for complying
with this subpart?
63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance of
emission standard during malfunction?
63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at my
affected source?

Testing and Compliance Requirements

63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance testing and
monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits and
demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work
practice standards?
63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance?
63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements
for storage vessels?
63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment leaks?
63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements
for heat exchange systems?
63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements
for process vents?
63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?
63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards for
process vents?
63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet for
control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission limits
for process vents?
63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for
process vents?
63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission
profile?
63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements
for other emission sources?
63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient monitoring?

[[Page 22908]]

63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance requirements
for stripped resin?
63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for wastewater?
63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for process
wastewater?
63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for process
wastewater?
63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures for
process wastewater?

Notifications, Reports and Records

63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when?
63.11990 What records must I keep?
63.11995 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Definitions

63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards
for Existing Affected Sources
Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards
for New Affected Sources
Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Summary of Control Requirements
for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources
Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of the General
Provisions to Part 63
Table 5 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Operating Parameters, Operating
Limits and Data Monitoring, Recording and Compliance Frequencies for
Process Vents
Table 6 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 7 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Calibration and Accuracy
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems
Table 8 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Methods and Procedures for
Conducting Performance Tests for Process Vents
Table 9 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Procedures for Conducting
Sampling of Resin and Process Wastewater
Table 10 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--HAP Subject to the Stripped
Resin and Process Wastewater Provisions at New and Existing Sources

Subpart HHHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
Production

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.11860 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants emitted from the production of polyvinyl chloride and
copolymers at major sources. This subpart also establishes requirements
to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission
standards.

Sec. 63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own or
operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production
process units (PVCPU) as defined in Sec. 63.12005 that are located at,
or are part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions as defined in Sec. 63.2. The requirements of this subpart do
not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act, or to chemical manufacturing process
units, as defined in Sec. 63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer
or other raw materials used in the production of polyvinyl chloride and
copolymers.

Sec. 63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart?

(a) This subpart applies to each polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production affected source.
(b) The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected
source is the facility wide collection of PVCPU, storage vessels, heat
exchange systems, surge control vessels, wastewater and process
wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing
polyvinyl chloride and copolymers.
(c) An existing affected source is one for which construction was
commenced on or before May 20, 2011, at a major source.
(d) A new affected source is one for which construction is
commenced after May 20, 2011, at a major source.
(e) If components of an existing affected source are replaced such
that the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in Sec.
63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after May 20, 2011, then the
existing affected source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject
to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed
source must comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon
initial startup of the reconstructed source or by April 17, 2012,
whichever is later.

Sec. 63.11871 What is the relationship to 40 CFR part 61, subpart F?

After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart and no longer has to comply with 40 CFR part
61, subpart F.

Sec. 63.11872 What is the relationship to other subparts in this
part?

After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also subject to the
provisions of other subparts in 40 CFR part 60 or this part is required
to comply with this subpart and any other applicable subparts in 40 CFR
part 60 or this part.

Sec. 63.11875 When must I comply with this subpart?

(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no
later than April 17, 2015. On or after April 17, 2015, any such
existing affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 61, subpart F.
(b) If you start up a new affected source on or before April 17,
2012, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart
no later than April 17, 2012. On or after April 17, 2012, any such new
affected source is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61,
subpart F.
(c) If you start up a new affected source after April 17, 2012, you
must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon
startup of your affected source. Upon startup, any such new affected
source is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.9
and 63.11985 according to the dates specified in those sections. Some
of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to
comply with the emission limits and standards in this subpart.

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards
must I meet?

(a) You must comply with each emission limit and standard specified
in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your existing affected
source, and you must comply with each emission limit and standard
specified in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to your new affected
source.

[[Page 22909]]

(b) You must establish an operating limit for each operating
parameter required to be monitored in Sec. 63.11925, and you must
establish each operating limit as an operating range, minimum operating
level or maximum operating level. You must comply with each established
operating limit.
(c) You must comply with the emission limits and standards
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11910 through 63.11980 that apply to your
affected source.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 4 to this subpart specifies which parts of the General
Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you.

Sec. 63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for
complying with this subpart?

(a) The emission limits, operating limits and work practice
standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction.
(b) At all times, you must operate and maintain your affected
source, including associated air pollution control components and
monitoring system components, in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Determination of whether acceptable operation and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(c) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all
monitoring system components according to Sec. Sec. 63.8, 63.11935(b)
and (c), and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must operate the continuous monitoring system at all times the
affected source is operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the
monitoring system to provide data. Monitoring system failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions. You are required to complete monitoring system repairs in
response to monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring
system to operation as expeditiously as practicable.
(2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must
use all the data collected during all other required data collection
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system. You must report any periods for which the monitoring
system failed to collect required data.
(d) A deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) Any instance in which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but
not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit or work practice
standard.
(2) When a performance test indicates that emissions of a pollutant
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart are exceeding the emission standard for
the pollutant specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(3) When a 3-hour block average from a continuous emissions
monitor, as required by Sec. 63.11925(c)(1) through (3), exceeds an
emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(4) When the average value of a monitored operating parameter,
based on the data averaging period for compliance specified in Table 5
to this subpart, does not meet the operating limit established in Sec.
63.11880(b).
(5) When an affected source discharges directly to the atmosphere
from any of the sources specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) A pressure relief device, as defined in Sec. 63.12005.
(ii) A bypass, as defined in Sec. 63.12005.
(iii) A closed vent system in vacuum service.
(iv) A closure device on a pressure vessel.
(6) Any instance in which the affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any
term or condition specified in paragraph (d)(6)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart.
(ii) Any term or condition relating to compliance with this subpart
that is included in the operating permit for any affected source
required to obtain such a permit.
(7) Any failure to collect required data, except for periods of
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).

Sec. 63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance
of emission standard during malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
Sec. 63.11880, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for
civil penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by
malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense
shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(a) Evidence. To establish the affirmative defense in any action to
enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that:
(1) The violation:
(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when violation
occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
(4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violations on ambient air quality, the environment and human health.

[[Page 22910]]

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices.
(7) All of the actions in response to the violations were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the violations resulting from the malfunction event at
issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods
and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator in the
compliance report required by Sec. 63.11985(b) with all necessary
supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in
this section.

Sec. 63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at
my affected source?

If you make a process change to an existing affected source that
does not meet the criteria to become a new affected source in Sec.
63.11870(d), you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section and the testing and reporting requirements in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section. If you make a process change to a new
affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (b)
of this section and the testing and reporting requirements in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Refer to Sec. 63.12005 for the
definition of process changes.
(a) You must demonstrate that the changed process unit or component
of the affected facility is in compliance with the applicable
requirements for an existing affected source. You must demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits and establish any
applicable operating limits in Sec. 63.11880 within 180 days of the
date of start-up of the changed process unit or component of the
affected facility. You must demonstrate compliance with any applicable
work practice standards upon startup of the changed process unit or
component of the affected facility.
(b) You must demonstrate that all changed emission points are in
compliance with the applicable requirements for a new affected source.
You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and
establish any applicable operating limits in Sec. 63.11880 within 180
days of the date of startup of the changed process unit or component of
the affected facility. You must demonstrate compliance with any
applicable work practice standards upon startup of the changed process
unit or component of the affected facility.
(c) For process changes, you must demonstrate continuous compliance
with your emission limits and standards, operating limits, and work
practice standards according to the procedures and frequency in
Sec. Sec. 63.11910 through 63.11980.
(d) For process changes, you must submit the report specified in
Sec. 63.11985(b)(4)(iii).

Testing and Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance testing
and monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits and
demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work
practice standards?

(a) For existing affected sources, you must establish any
applicable operating limits required in Sec. 63.11880 and demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits and standards specified in
Tables 1 and 3 to this subpart, as applicable, no later than 180 days
after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.11875 and according to
the applicable provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) For existing affected sources, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with any applicable work practice standards required in
Sec. 63.11880 no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.11875 and according to the applicable provisions in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
(c) For new or reconstructed affected sources, you must establish
any applicable operating limits required in Sec. 63.11880, and
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards
specified in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart, as applicable, no later
than 180 days after the effective date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register or within 180 days after startup of the source,
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) For new and reconstructed affected sources, you must
demonstrate initial compliance with any applicable work practice
standards required in Sec. 63.11880 no later than the startup date of
the affected source or the effective date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later, and according to the
applicable provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test
and a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for
which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, then you must
follow the procedures in Sec. 63.7(a)(4).

Sec. 63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance?

Following the date of your initial demonstration of compliance in
Sec. 63.11900, you must conduct subsequent performance testing and
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance with your emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards according to the
procedures and frequency in Sec. Sec. 63.11910 through 63.11980. If
you make a process change as specified in Sec. 63.11896, such that a
different emission limit or operating parameter limit applies, you must
conduct a performance test according to Sec. 63.11896.

Sec. 63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for storage vessels?

You must comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 to this
subpart for each storage vessel in HAP service.
(a) For each fixed roof storage vessel used to comply with the
requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. If you
elect to use a fixed roof storage vessel vented to a closed vent system
and control device, the closed vent system and control device must meet
the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11925 through 63.11950.
(1) Design requirements. (i) The fixed roof must be installed in a
manner such that there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other
open spaces between roof section joints or between the interface of the
roof edge and the tank wall.
(ii) Each opening in the fixed roof must be equipped with a closure
device designed to operate such that when the closure device is secured
in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or
other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the
opening and the closure device.
(2) Operating requirements. (i) Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, the fixed roof must be installed with each
closure device secured in the closed position.
(ii) Opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof is
allowed under conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)
of this section.

[[Page 22911]]

(A) A closure device may be opened or the roof may be removed when
needed to provide access.
(B) A conservation vent that vents to the atmosphere is allowed
during normal operations to maintain the tank internal operating
pressure within tank design specifications. Normal operating conditions
that may require these devices to open are during those times when the
internal pressure of the storage vessel is outside the internal
pressure operating range for the storage vessel as a result of loading
or unloading operations or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.
(iii) During periods of planned routine maintenance of a control
device, operate the storage vessel in accordance with paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. You must keep the records
specified in Sec. 63.11990(b)(6).
(A) Do not add material to the storage vessel during periods of
planned routine maintenance.
(B) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control
device to no more than 360 hours per year (hr/yr).
(3) Inspection and monitoring requirements. (i) Visually inspect
the fixed roof and its closure devices for defects initially and at
least once per calendar year except as specified in paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) of this section. Defects include, but are not limited to,
visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or between the roof
and the wall of the storage vessel; broken, cracked or otherwise
damaged seals, or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing
hatches, access covers, caps or other closure devices.
(ii) The inspection requirement specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section does not apply to parts of the fixed roof that you
determine are unsafe to inspect because operating personnel would be
exposed to an imminent or potential danger as a consequence of
complying with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, provided you comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of
this section.
(A) You prepare and maintain at the plant site written
documentation that identifies all parts of the fixed roof that are
unsafe to inspect and explains why such parts are unsafe to inspect.
(B) You develop and implement a written plan and schedule to
conduct inspections the next time alternative storage capacity becomes
available and the storage vessel can be emptied or temporarily removed
from service, as necessary, to complete the inspection. The required
inspections must be performed as frequently as practicable but do not
need to be performed more than once per calendar year. You must
maintain a copy of the written plan and schedule at the plant site.
(4) Repair requirements. (i) Complete repair of a defect as soon as
possible, but no later than 45 days after detection. You must comply
with the requirements in this paragraph (a)(4)(i) except as provided in
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Repair of a defect may be delayed beyond 45 days if you
determine that repair of the defect requires emptying or temporary
removal from service of the storage vessel and no alternative storage
capacity is available at the site to accept the removed material. In
this case, repair the defect the next time alternative storage capacity
becomes available and the storage vessel can be emptied or temporarily
removed from service.
(b) If you elect to use an internal floating roof storage vessel or
external floating roof storage vessel to comply with the requirements
specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet all requirements of
Sec. Sec. 63.1060 through 63.1067 of subpart WW of this part for
internal floating roof storage vessels or external floating roof
storage vessels, as applicable.
(c) For each pressure vessel used to comply with the requirements
specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Whenever the pressure vessel is in hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) service, you must operate the pressure vessel as a closed system
that does not vent to the atmosphere, e.g., during filling, emptying
and purging. The vent stream during filling, emptying and purging must
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11925(a) and (b).
(2) Each opening in the pressure vessel must be equipped with a
closure device designed to operate such that when the closure device is
secured in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps
or other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of
the opening and the closure device.
(3) All potential leak interfaces must be monitored annually for
leaks using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.11915 and you may
adjust for background concentration. You must comply with the
recordkeeping provisions specified in Sec. 63.11990(b)(4) and the
reporting provisions specified in Sec. 63.11985(a)(1), (b)(1), and
(b)(10).
(4) Pressure vessel closure devices must not discharge to the
atmosphere. Any such release (e.g., leak) constitutes a violation of
this rule. You must submit to the Administrator as part of your
compliance report the information specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(10).
This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense.

Sec. 63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment
leaks?

For equipment in HAP service (as defined in Sec. 63.12005), you
must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(a) Requirement for certain equipment in subpart UU of this part.
You must comply with Sec. Sec. 63.1020 through 63.1025, 63.1027,
63.1029 through 63.1032, and 63.1034 through 63.1039 of subpart UU of
this part.
(b) Requirements for pumps, compressors, and agitators. You must
meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. For
each type of equipment specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section, you must also meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(1) Rotating pumps. HAP emissions from seals on all rotating pumps
in HAP service are to be minimized by either installing sealless pumps,
pumps with double mechanical seals or equivalent equipment, or by
complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for
rotating pumps. If double mechanical seals are used, 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 complying with
Sec. 63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or procedures
approved by the Administrator.
(2) Reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, reciprocating
compressors and agitators. HAP emissions from seals on all
reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, reciprocating compressors
and agitators in HAP service are to be minimized by either installing
double mechanical seals or equivalent equipment, or by complying with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for reciprocating pumps,
rotating compressors, reciprocating compressors and/or agitators. If
double mechanical seals are used, HAP 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 complying with Sec.
63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or procedures approved by
the Administrator.
(c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. For pressure relief
devices in HAP service, as defined in Sec. 63.12005, you must meet the
requirements of this

[[Page 22912]]

paragraph (c) and paragraph (a) of this section, you must comply with
the recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.11990(c), and you must comply
with the reporting provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.11985(a)(2), (b)(2) and
(c)(7).
(1) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that discharge
directly to the atmosphere without first meeting the process vent
emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart by routing the
discharge to a closed vent system and control device designed and
operated in accordance with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11925
through 63.11950, you must install, maintain, and operate release
indicators as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section. Any release to the atmosphere without meeting the process vent
emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, constitutes a
violation of this rule. You must submit the report specified in Sec.
63.11985(c)(7), as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) A release indicator must be properly installed on each pressure
relief device in such a way that it will indicate when an emission
release has occurred.
(ii) Each indicator must be equipped with an alert system that will
notify an operator immediately and automatically when the pressure
relief device is open. The alert must be located such that the signal
is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
(iii) For any instance that the release indicator indicates that a
pressure relief device is open, you must notify operators that a
pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of the release, you
must submit to the Administrator the report specified in Sec.
63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if you elect to follow the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.11895 to establish an affirmative
defense.
(2) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that discharge
directly to a closed vent system and control device designed and
operated in accordance with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11925
through 63.11950, and are required to meet process vent emission limits
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. Any release to the atmosphere without
meeting the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart, constitutes a violation of this rule. You must notify
operators that a pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of
the release, you must submit to the Administrator the report specified
in Sec. 63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if you elect to
follow the procedures specified in Sec. 63.11895(b) to establish an
affirmative defense.

Sec. 63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for heat exchange systems?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
perform monitoring to identify leaks of volatile organic compounds from
each heat exchange system in HAP service subject to the requirements of
this subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) Monitoring locations for closed-loop recirculation heat
exchange systems. For each closed loop recirculating heat exchange
system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the location(s)
described in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Each cooling tower return line prior to exposure to air for
each heat exchange system in HAP service.
(ii) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a heat exchange system is
covered by the selected monitoring location(s).
(2) Monitoring locations for once-through heat exchange systems.
For each once-through heat exchange system, you must collect and
analyze a sample from the location(s) described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)
of this section. You may also elect to collect and analyze an
additional sample from the location(s) described in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers in HAP service within a heat
exchange system is covered by the selected monitoring location(s).
(ii) The inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange
system prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple heat exchange systems
use the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water
source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the
monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange
systems that use that same water feed.
(3) Monitoring method. You must determine the total strippable
volatile organic compounds concentration or vinyl chloride
concentration at each monitoring location using one of the analytical
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds
concentration (in parts per million by volume) as methane from the air
stripping testing system using Modified El Paso Method (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14) using a flame ionization detector analyzer.
(ii) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds
concentration (in parts per billion by weight) in the cooling water
using Method 624 at 40 CFR part 136, appendix A. The target list of
compounds shall be generated based on a pre-survey sample and analysis
by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and process knowledge to
include all compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water.
If Method 624 of part 136, appendix A is not applicable for all
compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water for a given
heat exchange system, you cannot use this monitoring method for that
heat exchange system.
(iii) Determine the vinyl chloride concentration (in parts per
billion by weight) in the cooling water using Method 107 at 40 CFR part
61, appendix A.
(4) Monitoring frequency. You must determine the total strippable
volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration at each
monitoring location at the frequencies specified in paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For heat exchange systems for which you have not delayed repair
of any leaks, monitor at least monthly. You may elect to monitor more
frequently than the minimum frequency specified in this paragraph.
(ii) If you elect to monitor the inlet water feed line for a once-
through heat exchange system as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section, you must monitor the inlet water feed line at the same
frequency used to monitor the heat exchange exit line(s), as required
in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) A heat exchange system is not subject to the monitoring
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if it meets any one of
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) All heat exchangers that are in HAP service within the heat
exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water
side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the
process side.
(2) The heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers
that are in HAP service.
(3) The heat exchange system has a maximum cooling water flow rate
of 10 gallons per minute or less.
(c) The leak action levels for both existing and new sources are
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the

[[Page 22913]]

monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section,
then the leak action level is a total strippable volatile organic
compounds concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 3.9 parts
per million by volume.
(2) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the
monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section,
then the leak action level is a total strippable volatile organic
compounds concentration in the cooling water of 50 parts per billion by
weight.
(3) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by using the
monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section,
then the leak action level is a vinyl chloride concentration in the
cooling water of 50 parts per billion by weight.
(d) A leak is defined as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of
this section, as applicable.
(1) For once-through heat exchange systems for which you monitor
the inlet water feed, as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section, a leak is detected if the difference in the measurement value
of the sample taken from a location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section and the measurement value of the corresponding sample
taken from the location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section equals or exceeds the leak action level.
(2) For all other heat exchange systems, a leak is detected if a
measurement value taken according to the requirements in paragraph (a)
of this section equals or exceeds the leak action level.
(e) If a leak is detected, you must repair the leak to reduce the
measured concentration to below the applicable action level as soon as
practicable, but no later than 45 days after identifying the leak,
except as specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Repair
includes re-monitoring as specified in paragraph (a) of this section to
verify that the measured concentration is below the applicable action
level. Actions that you can take to achieve repair include but are not
limited to:
(1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
(2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
(3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process
fluid;
(4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
(5) Isolating, bypassing or otherwise removing the leaking heat
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
(f) If you detect a leak when monitoring a cooling tower return
line or heat exchanger exit line under paragraph (a) of this section,
you may conduct additional monitoring following the requirements in
paragraph (a) of this section to further isolate each heat exchanger or
group of heat exchangers in HAP service within the heat exchange system
for which the leak was detected. If you do not detect any leaks when
conducting additional monitoring for each heat exchanger or group of
heat exchangers, the heat exchange system is excluded from repair
requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
(g) The delay of repair action level is defined as either a total
strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (as methane) in the
stripping gas of 39 parts per million by volume or a total strippable
volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water of 500
parts per billion by weight or a vinyl chloride concentration in the
cooling water of 500 parts per billion by weight. While you remain
below the repair action level, you may delay the repair of a leaking
heat exchanger only if one of the conditions in paragraphs (g)(1) or
(2) of this section is met. If you exceed the repair action level you
must repair according to paragraph (e) of this section. You must
determine if a delay of repair is necessary as soon as practicable, but
no later than 45 days after first identifying the leak.
(1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and
the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride
concentration is initially and remains less than the delay of repair
action level for all monitoring periods during the delay of repair, you
may delay repair until the next scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange
system. If, during subsequent monitoring, the total strippable volatile
organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or
greater than the delay of repair action level, you must repair the leak
within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the total strippable
volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride concentration was equal to
or exceeded the delay of repair action level.
(2) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not
available and the total strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl
chloride concentration is initially and remains less than the delay of
repair action level for all monitoring periods during the delay of
repair, you may delay the repair for a maximum of 120 days from the day
the leak was first identified. You must demonstrate that the necessary
equipment, parts or personnel were not available. If, during subsequent
monthly monitoring, the total strippable volatile organic compounds or
vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or greater than the delay of
repair action level, you must repair the leak within 30 days of the
monitoring event in which the leak was equal to or exceeded the total
strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride delay of repair
action level.
(h) To delay the repair under paragraph (g) of this section, you
must record the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) The reason(s) for delaying repair.
(2) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical.
(3) The date and concentration of the leak as first identified and
the results of all subsequent monitoring events during the delay of
repair.
(4) An estimate of the potential emissions from the leaking heat
exchange system following the procedures in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic compounds or
vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water, in parts per billion
by weight. If the Modified El Paso Method is used, calculate the total
strippable volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling
water using equation 7-1 from Modified El Paso Method (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14) and the total strippable volatile organic
compounds concentration measured in the stripped air.
(ii) Calculate the emissions for the leaking heat exchange system
by multiplying the volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride
concentration in the cooling water, ppbw, by the flow rate of the
cooling water at the selected monitoring location and by the expected
duration of the delay according to Equation 1 of this section. The flow
rate may be based on direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance
calculations or other engineering methods.

[[Page 22914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.000

Where:

EL = Emissions from leaking heat exchange system, pounds
of volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride.
CVC = Actual measured concentration of total strippable
volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride measured in the cooling
water, parts per billion by weight (ppbw).
VCW = Total volumetric flow rate of cooling water,
gallons per minute (gpm).
[rho]CW = Density of cooling water, pounds per gallon
(lb/gal).
Ddelay = Expected duration of the repair delay, days.

Sec. 63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for process vents?

Each process vent must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (h) of this section.
(a) Emission limits. Each process vent must meet the emission
limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart prior to the vent stream being
exposed to the atmosphere. The emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart apply at all times. The emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart must not be met through dilution.
(b) Closed vent systems and control devices. Each batch process
vent, continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent that is in HAP
service must be routed through a closed vent system to a control
device. All gas streams routed to the closed vent system and control
device must be for a process purpose and not for the purpose of
diluting the process vent to meet the emission limits in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart. Each control device used to comply with paragraph (a)
of this section must meet the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.11925 and
63.11940, and all closed vent systems must meet the requirements in
Sec. 63.11930. You must not use a flare to comply with the emission
limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(c) General monitoring requirements. Except as provided in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, for each control device
used to comply with the process vent emission limit specified in Table
1 or 2 to this subpart, you must install and operate a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to monitor each operating parameter
specified in Sec. 63.11940(a) through (h) to comply with your
operating limit(s) required in Sec. 63.11880(b).
(1) Hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS).
In lieu of establishing operating limits in Sec. 63.11880(b) and using
CPMS to comply with the operating limits, as specified in Sec.
63.11940(a) through (h), upon promulgation of a performance
specification for hydrogen chloride CEMS, new and existing sources have
the option to install a hydrogen chloride CEMS to demonstrate initial
and continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limit for
process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(2) Dioxin/furan CEMS. In lieu of establishing operating limits in
Sec. 63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with the operating limits as
specified in Sec. 63.11940(a) through (h), upon promulgation of a
performance specification for dioxin/furan CEMS, new and existing
sources have the option to install a dioxin/furan CEMS to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with the dioxins/furan emission limit
for process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section.
(3) Total hydrocarbon CEMS. In lieu of establishing operating
limits in Sec. 63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with the operating
limits as specified in Sec. 63.11940(a) through (h), new and existing
affected sources have the option to install a total hydrocarbon CEMS to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the total
hydrocarbons or total organic HAP emission limit for process vents, as
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(d) Initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must comply with
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must conduct an initial inspection as specified in Sec.
63.11930(d) for each closed vent system.
(2) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to use as
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must prepare the
quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test
plan as specified in Sec. 63.11935(b) and site-specific monitoring
plan specified in Sec. 63.11935(c), respectively.
(3) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to use as
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must install, operate,
and maintain the CEMS and CPMS as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11935(b)
and (c), respectively, and you must conduct an initial site-specific
performance evaluation test according to your site-specific monitoring
plan and Sec. Sec. 63.11935(b)(3) and (c)(4), respectively.
(4) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to demonstrate
compliance, you must meet the requirements specified in Sec.
63.11890(c), and you must demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on 3-hour block
averages of CEMS data collected at the minimum frequency specified in
Sec. 63.11935(b)(2) and calculated using the data reduction method
specified in Sec. 63.11935(e). For a CEMS used on a batch operation,
you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu
of the 3-hour averaging period.
(5) For each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 for which you do not
use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct an initial performance test according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.11945 to demonstrate compliance with the total
hydrocarbons or total organic HAP emission limit, vinyl chloride
emission limit, hydrogen chloride emission limit, and dioxin/furan
emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(ii) During the performance test specified in paragraph (d)(5)(i)
of this section, for each CPMS installed and operated as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section, you must establish an operating limit as
the operating parameter range, minimum operating parameter level, or
maximum operating parameter level specified in Sec. 63.11935(d). You
must meet the requirements specified in Sec. 63.11890(c). Each
operating limit must be based on the data averaging period for
compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart using data collected at
the minimum frequency specified in Sec. 63.11935(c)(2) and calculated
using the data reduction method specified in Sec. 63.11935(e). For a
CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period
based on an operating block in lieu of the averaging period specified
in Table 5 to this subpart.
(e) Continuous compliance. To demonstrate continuous compliance
with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for each
process vent, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.11930 for each
closed vent system.

[[Page 22915]]

(2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS and CPMS required in
paragraph (c) of this section as specified in Sec. 63.11935(b) and
(c), respectively.
(3) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to demonstrate
compliance, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a periodic site-specific CEMS performance
evaluation test according to your quality control program and site-
specific performance evaluation test plan specified in Sec.
63.11935(b)(1).
(ii) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on 3-hour block averages
of CEMS data collected at the minimum frequency specified in Sec.
63.11935(b)(2), and calculated using the data reduction method
specified in Sec. 63.11935(e). You must meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.11890(c). For a CEMS used on a batch operation,
you may use a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu
of the 3-hour averaging period.
(4) For each emission limit for which you do not use a CEMS to
demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a performance test once every 5 years
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.11945 for each pollutant in
Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(ii) For each CPMS operated and maintained as specified in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, you must meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) You must conduct periodic site-specific CPMS performance
evaluation tests according to your site-specific monitoring plan and
Sec. 63.11935(c).
(B) For each control device being monitored, you must continuously
collect CPMS data consistent with Sec. 63.11890(c) and your site-
specific monitoring plan. You must continuously determine the average
value of each monitored operating parameter based on the data
collection and reduction methods specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11935(c)(2)
and 63.11935(e), and the applicable data averaging period for
compliance specified in Table 5 to this subpart for all periods the
process is operating. For a CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use
a data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the
averaging periods specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
(C) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit established in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section using these
average values calculated in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.
(5) Each closed vent system and control device used to comply with
an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must be operated at
all times when emissions are vented to, or collected by, these systems
or devices.
(f) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan toxic
equivalency emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart,
you must determine dioxin/furan toxic equivalency as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetra-through
octachlorinated) congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section, multiply
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency
factor specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(g) Emission profile. You must characterize each process vent by
developing an emissions profile for each contributing continuous
process vent, miscellaneous vent and batch process vent according to
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For batch process vents, the emissions profile must:
(i) Describe the characteristics of the batch process vent under
worst-case conditions.
(ii) Determine emissions per episode and batch process vent
emissions according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.11950.
(2) For continuous process vents, the flow rate and concentration
must be determined according to paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) or
according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv):
(i)(A) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as
appropriate, shall be used for selection of the sampling site. The
sampling site shall be after the last recovery device (if any recovery
devices are present) but prior to being combined with any other
continuous process vent, batch process vent, or miscellaneous vent,
prior to the inlet of any control device that is present and prior to
release to the atmosphere.
(B) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller
than 0.10 meter in diameter.
(ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method
2, 2A, 2C or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as appropriate.
(iii) (A) Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 25A
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 shall be used to measure concentration;
alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated
according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of this part may
be used.
(B) Where Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 is used, the
following procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by
volume concentration:
(1) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which
either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time, such as 15-minute intervals during the run.
(2) The concentration of either total organic compounds (TOC)
(minus methane and ethane) or organic HAP shall be calculated according
to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(ii) of this
section as applicable.
(i) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is the sum of the
concentrations of the individual components and shall be computed for
each run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.001

[[Page 22916]]

Where:

CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cji = Concentration of sample component j of the sample
i, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
n = Number of components in the sample.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.

(ii) The total organic HAP concentration (CHAP) shall be computed
according to Equation 1 of this section except that only the organic
HAP species shall be summed. The list of organic HAP is provided in
Table 2 to subpart F of this part.
(C) Where Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is used, the
following procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by
volume TOC concentration:
(1) Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, shall be used only
if a single organic HAP compound is greater than 50 percent of total
organic HAP, by volume, in the vent stream.
(2) The vent stream composition may be determined by either process
knowledge, test data collected using an appropriate EPA method, or a
method or data validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of
appendix A of this part. Examples of information that could constitute
process knowledge include calculations based on material balances,
process stoichiometry, or previous test results provided the results
are still relevant to the current vent stream conditions.
(3) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 shall be the single organic HAP compound
present at greater than 50 percent of the total organic HAP by volume.
(4) The span value for Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7
shall be 50 parts per million by volume.
(5) Use of Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is acceptable
if the response from the high-level calibration gas is at least 20
times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration
gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(iv) Engineering assessment including, but not limited to, the
following:
(A) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the process unit.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, TOC emission rate, organic HAP emission
rate, or net heating value limit specified or implied within a permit
limit applicable to the process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to
estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations,
(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment
design such as pump or blower capacities,
(3) Estimation of TOC or organic HAP concentrations based on
saturation conditions,
(4) Estimation of maximum expected net heating value based on the
vent stream concentration of each organic compound or, alternatively,
as if all TOC in the vent stream were the compound with the highest
heating value.
(E) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering
assessment shall be documented.
(3) For miscellaneous process vents the emissions profile must be
determined according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section.
(h) Process changes. Except for temporary shutdowns for maintenance
activities, if you make a process change such that, as a result of that
change, you are subject to a different process vent limit in Table 1 or
2 to this subpart, then you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.11896.

Sec. 63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?

(a) General. To route emissions from process vents subject to the
emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart to a control device,
you must use a closed vent system and meet the requirements of this
section and all provisions referenced in this section. However, if you
operate and maintain your closed vent system in vacuum service as
defined in Sec. 63.12005, you must meet the requirements in paragraph
(h) of this section and are not required to meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section.
(b) Collection of emissions. Each closed vent system must be
designed and operated to collect the HAP vapors from each continuous
process vent, miscellaneous process vent and batch process vent, and to
route the collected vapors to a control device.
(c) Bypass. For each closed vent system that contains a bypass as
defined in Sec. 63.12005 (e.g., diverting a vent stream away from the
control device), you must not discharge to the atmosphere through the
bypass. Any such release constitutes a violation of this rule. The use
of any bypass diverted to the atmosphere during a performance test
invalidates the performance test. You must comply with the provisions
of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section for each closed vent
system that contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream to the
atmosphere.
(1) Bypass flow indicator. Install, maintain, and operate a flow
indicator as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) The flow indicator must be properly installed at the entrance
to any bypass.
(ii) The flow indicator must be equipped with an alarm system that
will alert an operator immediately, and automatically when flow is
detected in the bypass. The alarm must be located such that the alert
is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
(iii) If the alarm is triggered, you must immediately initiate
procedures to identify the cause of the alarm. If any closed vent
system has discharged to the atmosphere through a vent or bypass, you
must initiate procedures to stop the bypass discharge.
(iv) For any instances where the flow indicator alarm is triggered,
you must submit to the Administrator as part of your compliance report,
the information specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(9) and (10). This report
is required even if you elect to follow the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense and submit the
reports specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(11).
(2) Bypass valve configuration. Secure the bypass valve in the non-
diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration.
(i) You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at
least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the
non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the
bypass. A broken seal or closure mechanism or a diverted valve
constitutes a violation from the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart. You must maintain the records specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) For each seal or closure mechanism, you must comply with
either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) For each instance that you change the bypass valve to the
diverting position, you must submit to the Administrator as part of
your compliance report, the information specified in Sec.
63.11985(b)(9) and (10). This report is required even if you elect to
follow the procedures specified in Sec. 63.11895 to establish an
affirmative defense and submit the reports specified in Sec.
63.11985(b)(11).

[[Page 22917]]

(B) You must install, maintain, and operate a bypass flow indicator
as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and you
must meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section for each instance that the flow indicator alarm is triggered.
(d) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring requirements.
Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must
inspect each closed vent system as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2)
of this section.
(1) Hard-piping inspection. If the closed vent system is
constructed of hard-piping, you must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(ii) Conduct annual inspections for visible, audible, or olfactory
indications of leaks.
(2) Ductwork inspection. If the closed vent system is constructed
of ductwork, you must conduct initial and annual inspections according
to the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) Equipment that is unsafe to inspect. You may designate any
parts of the closed vent system as unsafe to inspect if you determine
that personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence
of complying with the initial and annual closed vent system inspection
requirements of this subpart.
(e) Closed vent system inspection procedures. Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, you must comply with all provisions
of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) General. Inspections must be performed during periods when HAP
is being collected by or vented through the closed vent system. A leak
is indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per
million by volume above background or by visual inspection.
(2) Inspection procedures. Each closed vent system subject to this
paragraph (e)(2) must be inspected according to the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Inspections must be conducted in accordance with Method 21 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except as otherwise specified in this
section.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section,
the detection instrument must meet the performance criteria of Method
21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except the instrument response
factor criteria in section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 must be for the
representative composition of the process fluid and not of each
individual volatile organic compound in the stream. For process streams
that contain nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that are not organic
HAP or volatile organic compound, the representative stream response
factor must be determined on an inert-free basis. You may determine the
response factor at any concentration for which you will monitor for
leaks.
(iii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will
meet the performance criteria of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, the instrument
readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the representative response
factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-free basis as
described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iv) The detection instrument must be calibrated before use on each
day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7.
(v) Calibration gases must be as specified in paragraphs
(e)(2)(v)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume hydrocarbon
in air).
(B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 10,000
parts per million by volume. A calibration gas other than methane in
air may be used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the
instrument does not meet the performance criteria specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. In such cases, the calibration
gas may be a mixture of one or more of the compounds to be measured in
air.
(C) If the detection instrument's design allows for multiple
calibration scales, then the lower scale must be calibrated with a
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,500 parts per million by
volume.
(D) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the
end of each monitoring day. Check the instrument using the same
calibration gas(es) that were used to calibrate the instrument before
use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, section 10.1, except do not adjust the meter readout to
correspond to the calibration gas value. Record the instrument reading
for each scale used as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
Divide these readings by the initial calibration values for each scale
and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
If any calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of more than
10 percent from the initial calibration value, then all equipment
monitored since the last calibration with instrument readings below the
appropriate leak definition and above the leak definition multiplied by
the value specified in paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D)(1) of this section must
be re-monitored. If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive
drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then,
at your discretion, all equipment since the last calibration with
instrument readings above the appropriate leak definition and below the
leak definition multiplied by the value specified in paragraph
(e)(2)(v)(D)(2) of this section may be re-monitored.
(1) 100 minus the percent of negative drift, divided by 100.
(2) 100 plus the percent of positive drift, divided by 100.
(vi) You may elect to adjust or not adjust instrument readings for
background. If you elect not to adjust readings for background, all
such instrument readings must be compared directly to 500 parts per
million by volume to determine whether there is a leak. If you elect to
adjust instrument readings for background, you must measure background
concentration using the procedures in this section. You must subtract
the background reading from the maximum concentration indicated by the
instrument.
(vii) If you elect to adjust for background, the arithmetic
difference between the maximum concentration indicated by the
instrument and the background level must be compared with 500 parts per
million by volume for determining whether there is a leak.
(3) Instrument probe. The instrument probe must be traversed around
all potential leak interfaces as described in Method 21 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7.
(4) Unsafe-to-inspect written plan requirements. For equipment
designated as unsafe to inspect according to the provisions of
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must maintain and follow a
written plan that requires inspecting the equipment as frequently as
practical during safe-to-inspect times, but not more frequently than
the annual inspection schedule otherwise applicable. You must still
repair unsafe-to-inspect equipment according to the procedures in
paragraph (f) of this section if a leak is detected.
(f) Closed vent system leak repair provisions. The provisions of
this paragraph (f) apply to closed vent systems collecting HAP from an
affected source.
(1) Leak repair general for hard-piping. If there are visible,
audible, or olfactory indications of leaks at the time

[[Page 22918]]

of the annual visual inspections required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section, you must follow the procedure specified in either
paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) You must eliminate the leak.
(ii) You must monitor the equipment according to the procedures in
paragraph (e) of this section and comply with the leak repair
provisions in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(2) Leak repair schedule. Leaks must be repaired as soon as
practical, except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(i) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 days
after the leak is detected.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section,
repairs must be completed no later than 15 days after the leak is
detected or at the beginning of the next introduction of vapors to the
system, whichever is later.
(3) Delay of repair. Delay of repair of a closed vent system for
which leaks have been detected is allowed if repair within 15 days
after a leak is detected is technically infeasible or unsafe without a
closed vent system shutdown or if you determine that emissions
resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the emissions
likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of such equipment must be
completed as soon as practical, but not later than the end of the next
closed vent system shutdown.
(g) Closed vent system records. For closed vent systems, you must
record the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of
this section, as applicable.
(1) Bypass records. For each closed vent system that contains a
bypass that could divert a vent stream away from the control device and
to the atmosphere, or cause air intrusion into the control device, you
must keep a record of the information specified in either paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) You must maintain records of any alarms triggered because flow
was detected in the bypass, including the date and time the alarm was
triggered, the duration of the flow in the bypass, as well as records
of the times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the
control device or the flow indicator is not operating.
(ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, you must record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals
or closure mechanisms has been done, and must record the occurrence of
all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass valve
position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been
checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been broken.
(2) Inspection records. For each instrumental or visual inspection
conducted in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section
for closed vent systems collecting HAP from an affected source during
which no leaks are detected, you must record that the inspection was
performed, the date of the inspection, and a statement that no leaks
were detected.
(3) Leak records. When a leak is detected from a closed vent system
collecting HAP from an affected source, the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section must be recorded and
kept for 5 years.
(i) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the
operator name, initials, or identification number.
(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the first
attempt to repair the leak.
(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(iv) The maximum instrument reading measured by the procedures in
paragraph (e) of this section after the leak is successfully repaired.
(v) Repair delayed and the reason for the delay if a leak is not
repaired within 15 days after discovery of the leak. You may develop a
written procedure that identifies the conditions that justify a delay
of repair. In such cases, reasons for delay of repair may be documented
by citing the relevant sections of the written procedure.
(vi) Copies of the compliance reports as specified in Sec.
63.11985(b)(9), if records are not maintained on a computerized
database capable of generating summary reports from the records.
(4) Instrument calibration records. You must maintain records of
the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (vi) of this
section for monitoring instrument calibrations conducted according to
sections 8.1.2 and 10 of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and
paragraph (e) of this section.
(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing the
calibration.
(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification date,
and certified concentration.
(iii) Instrument scale(s) used.
(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the meter
readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the calibration gas
value in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by
paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D) of this section (i.e., instrument reading for
calibration at end of the monitoring day and the calculated percent
difference from the initial calibration value).
(vi) If you make your own calibration gas, a description of the
procedure used.
(5) Unsafe-to-inspect records. If you designate equipment as
unsafe-to-inspect as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you
must keep the records specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) You must maintain the identity of unsafe-to-inspect equipment
as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(ii) You must keep a written plan for inspecting unsafe-to-inspect
equipment as required by paragraph (e)(4) of this section and record
all activities performed according to the written plan.
(h) Closed vent systems in vacuum service. If you operate and
maintain a closed vent system in vacuum service as defined in Sec.
63.12005, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section, and you are not required to comply with
any other provisions of this section. Any incidence where a closed vent
system designed to be in vacuum service is operating and not in vacuum
service constitutes a violation of this rule, unless the closed vent
system is meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of
this section for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum service.
Any such incidence during a performance test invalidates the
performance test.
(1) In vacuum service alarm. You must install, maintain, and
operate a pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator
immediately and automatically when the pressure is such that the closed
vent system no longer meets the definition of in vacuum service as
defined in Sec. 63.12005. The alarm must be located such that the
alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
(2) In vacuum service alarm procedures. If the alarm is triggered
for a closed vent system operating in vacuum service as specified in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section, you must immediately initiate
procedures to identify the cause of the alarm. If the closed vent
system is not in vacuum service, you must initiate procedures to get
the closed vent system back in vacuum service as defined in Sec.
63.12005, or you must immediately comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section

[[Page 22919]]

for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum service.
(3) In vacuum service alarm records and reports. For any incidences
where a closed vent system designed to be in vacuum service is not in
vacuum service, you must submit to the Administrator as part of your
compliance report, the information specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(10).
This report is required even if you elect to follow the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.11895 to establish an affirmative defense and
submit the reports specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(11).

Sec. 63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission
standards for process vents?

(a) General requirements for CEMS and CPMS. You must meet the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for each CEMS specified
in Sec. 63.11925(c) used to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must meet
the CPMS requirements in paragraph (c) of this section and establish
your operating limits in paragraph (d) of this section for each
operating parameter specified in Table 5 to this subpart for each
process vent control device specified in Sec. 63.11925(b) that is used
to comply with the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart, except that flow indicators specified in Sec.
63.11940(a) are not subject to the requirements of this section.
(b) CEMS. You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section and
continuously monitor emissions.
(1) You must prepare your quality control program and site-specific
performance evaluation test plan, as specified in Sec. 63.8(d) and
(e). You must submit your performance evaluation test plan to the
Administrator for approval, as specified in Sec. 63.8(e)(3).
(2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a
continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 minutes.
(3) You must conduct initial and periodic site-specific performance
evaluations and any required tests of each CEMS according to your
quality control program and site-specific performance evaluation test
plan prepared as specified in Sec. 63.8(d) and (e).
(4) If supplemental gases are added to the control device, you must
correct the measured concentrations in accordance with Sec.
63.11945(d)(3).
(5) You must operate and maintain the CEMS in continuous operation
according to the quality control program and performance evaluation
test plan. CEMS must record data at least once every 15 minutes.
(6) CEMS must meet the minimum accuracy and calibration frequency
requirements specified in the performance specifications specified in
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) A hydrogen chloride or dioxin/furan CEMS must meet the
requirements of the promulgated performance specification for the CEMS.
(ii) A total hydrocarbon CEMS must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix B, performance specification 8A.
(7) Before commencing or ceasing use of a CEMS system, you must
notify the Administrator as specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii)
of this section.
(i) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system.
(ii) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in which case you must
also conduct a performance test within 60 days of ceasing operation of
the system.
(c) CPMS. You must install, maintain, and operate each CPMS as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section and
continuously monitor operating parameters.
(1) As part of your quality control program and site-specific
performance evaluation test plan prepared as specified in Sec. 63.8(d)
and (e), you must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the monitoring system design, data collection, and the
quality assurance and quality control elements specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and Sec. 63.8(d). You are not
required to submit the plan for approval unless requested by the
Administrator. You may request approval of monitoring system quality
assurance and quality control procedure alternatives to those specified
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section in your site-
specific monitoring plan.
(i) The performance criteria and design specifications for the
monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector
signal analyzer, and data acquisition and calculations.
(ii) Sampling interface (e.g., thermocouple) location such that the
monitoring system will provide representative measurements.
(iii) Equipment performance checks, calibrations, or other audit
procedures.
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with provisions in Sec. 63.8(c)(1) and (3).
(v) Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping procedures in accordance
with provisions in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
(2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a
continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 minutes.
(3) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to
the procedures and requirements in your site-specific monitoring plan.
(4) You must conduct an initial and periodic site-specific
performance evaluation tests of each CPMS according to your site-
specific monitoring plan.
(5) All CPMS must meet the specific parameter (e.g., minimum
accuracy and calibration frequency) requirements specified in Sec.
63.11940 and Table 7 to this subpart.
(6) Monitoring equipment for temperature, pressure, volumetric flow
rate, mass flow rate and conductivity must be capable of measuring the
appropriate parameter over a range that extends at least 20 percent
beyond the normal expected operating range of values for that
parameter. The data recording system associated with affected CPMS must
have a resolution that is equal to or better than one-half of the
required system accuracy.
(d) Establish operating limit. For each operating parameter that
must be monitored in Sec. 63.11925(c) for process vent control
devices, you must establish an operating limit as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. You must establish each
operating limit as an operating parameter range, minimum operating
parameter level, or maximum operating parameter level as specified in
Table 7 to this subpart. Where this subpart does not specify which
format to use for your operating limit (e.g., operating range or
minimum operating level), you must determine which format is best to
establish proper operation of the control device such that you are
meeting the emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(1) For process vent control devices, the operating limit
established for each monitored parameter specified in Sec. 63.11940
must be based on the operating parameter values recorded during any
performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance as required by
Sec. 63.11925(d)(4) and (e)(4) and may be supplemented by engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. You are not required

[[Page 22920]]

to conduct performance tests over the entire range of allowed operating
parameter values. The established operating limit must represent the
conditions for which the control device is meeting the emission limits
specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(2) You must include as part of the notification of compliance
status or the operating permit application or amendment, the
information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, for each process vent control device requiring operating
limits.
(i) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies and
operating scenarios.
(ii) The established operating limit of the monitored parameter(s).
(iii) The rationale for the established operating limit, including
any data and calculations used to develop the operating limit and a
description of why the operating limit indicates proper operation of
the control device.
(iv) The rationale used to determine which format to use for your
operating limit (e.g., operating range, minimum operating level or
maximum operating level), where this subpart does not specify which
format to use.
(3) For batch processes, you may establish operating limits for
individual batch emission episodes, including each distinct episode of
process vent emissions or each individual type of batch process that
generates wastewater, if applicable. You must provide rationale in a
batch precompliance report as specified in Sec. 63.11985(c)(2) instead
of the notification of compliance status for the established operating
limit. You must include any data and calculations used to develop the
operating limits and a description of why each operating limit
indicates proper operation of the control device during the specific
batch emission episode.
(4) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for
different batch emission episodes within a batch process as specified
in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must maintain daily records
indicating each point at which you change from one operating limit to
another, even if the monitoring duration for an operating limit is less
than 15 minutes. You must maintain a daily record according to Sec.
63.11990(e)(4)(i).
(e) Reduction of CPMS and CEMS data. You must reduce CEMS and CPMS
data to 1-hour averages according to Sec. 63.8(g) to compute the
average values for demonstrating compliance specified in Sec. Sec.
63.11925(e)(3)(ii), 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B), and 63.11960(c)(2) for CEMS
and CPMS, as applicable.

Sec. 63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet for
control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission limits
for process vents?

As required in Sec. 63.11925(c), you must install and operate the
applicable CPMS specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section
for each control device you use to comply with the emission limits for
process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must monitor,
record, and calculate CPMS data averages as specified in Table 7 to
this subpart. Paragraph (h) of this section provides an option to
propose alternative monitoring parameters or procedures.
(a) Flow indicator. If flow to a control device could be
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no
flow.
(b) Thermal oxidizer monitoring. If you are using a thermal
oxidizer to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and
you are required to use CPMS as specified in Sec. 63.11925(c), you
must equip the thermal oxidizer with the monitoring equipment specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable.
(1) If a thermal oxidizer other than a catalytic thermal oxidizer
is used, you must install a temperature monitoring device in the fire
box or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the fire box in a
position before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, where a
catalytic thermal oxidizer is used, you must install temperature
monitoring devices in the gas stream immediately before and after the
catalyst bed. You must monitor the temperature differential across the
catalyst bed.
(3) Instead of complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and
if the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of the
catalytic thermal oxidizer during normal operating conditions is less
than 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit), you may elect to
monitor the inlet temperature and conduct catalyst checks as specified
in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst
activity (i.e., conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or
catalyst supplier's recommended procedures. If problems are found
during the catalyst activity test, you must replace the catalyst bed or
take other corrective action consistent with the manufacturer's
recommendations within 15 days or by the next time any process vent
stream is collected by the control device, whichever is sooner.
(ii) You must conduct annual internal inspections of the catalyst
bed to check for fouling, plugging, or mechanical breakdown. You must
also inspect the bed for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If
problems are found during the annual internal inspection of the
catalyst, you must replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective
action consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations within 15
days or by the next time any process vent stream is collected by the
control device, whichever is later. If the catalyst bed is replaced and
is not of like or better kind and quality as the old catalyst then you
must conduct a new performance test according to Sec. 63.11945 to
determine destruction efficiency. If a catalyst bed is replaced and the
replacement catalyst is of like or better kind and quality as the old
catalyst, then a new performance test to determine destruction
efficiency is not required.
(c) Absorber and acid gas scrubber monitoring. If you are using an
absorber or acid gas scrubber to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.11925(c), you must install the monitoring equipment specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in
either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas scrubber
influent liquid flow.
(ii) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas scrubber
influent liquid flow and the gas stream flow using one of the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this
section. You must monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio determined by
dividing the flow rate of the absorber or acid gas scrubber influent by
the gas flow rate. The units of measure must be consistent with those
used to calculate this ratio during the performance test.
(A) Determine gas stream flow using the design blower capacity,
with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop.
(B) Measure the gas stream flow at the absorber or acid gas
scrubber inlet.
(C) If you have previously determined compliance for a scrubber
that requires a determination of the liquid-to-gas ratio, you may use
the results of that test provided the test conditions are
representative of current operation.
(2) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in
either paragraph (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.

[[Page 22921]]

(i) Install and operate pressure gauges at the inlet and outlet of
the absorber or acid gas scrubber to monitor the pressure drop through
the absorber or acid gas scrubber.
(ii) If the difference in the inlet gas stream temperature and the
inlet liquid stream temperature is greater than 38 degrees Celsius, you
may install and operate a temperature monitoring device at the scrubber
gas stream exit.
(iii) If the difference between the specific gravity of the
scrubber effluent scrubbing fluid and specific gravity of the scrubber
inlet scrubbing fluid is greater than or equal to 0.02 specific gravity
units, you may install and operate a specific gravity monitoring device
on the inlet and outlet of the scrubber.
(3) If the scrubbing liquid is a reactant (e.g., lime, ammonia
hydroxide), you must install and operate one of the devices listed in
either paragraph (c)(3)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section.
(i) A pH monitoring device to monitor the pH of the scrubber liquid
effluent.
(ii) A caustic strength monitoring device to monitor the caustic
strength of the scrubber liquid effluent.
(iii) A conductivity monitoring device to monitor the conductivity
of the scrubber liquid effluent.
(d) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. If you are using a
regenerative adsorber to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.11925(c), you must install and operate the applicable monitoring
equipment listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, and
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) of this
section. If the adsorption system water is wastewater as defined in
Sec. 63.12005, then it is subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.11965.
(1) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an integrating
regeneration stream flow monitoring device having an accuracy of 10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream
mass for each regeneration cycle. For non-vacuum regeneration systems,
an integrating regeneration stream flow monitoring device capable of
continuously recording the total regeneration stream mass flow for each
regeneration cycle.
(2) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an adsorber bed
temperature monitoring device, capable of continuously recording the
adsorber bed temperature after each regeneration and within 15 minutes
of completing any temperature regulation (cooling or warming to bring
bed temperature closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the
regeneration cycle.
(3) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, an adsorber
bed temperature monitoring device capable of continuously recording the
bed temperature during regeneration, except during any temperature
regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature closer to vent
gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle.
(4) For a vacuum regeneration system, a pressure transmitter
installed in the vacuum pump suction line capable of continuously
recording the vacuum level for each minute during regeneration. You
must establish a minimum target and a length of time at which the
vacuum must be below the minimum target during regeneration.
(5) A device capable of monitoring the regeneration frequency
(i.e., operating time since last regeneration) and duration.
(6) You must perform a verification of the adsorber during each day
of operation. The verification must be through visual observation or
through an automated alarm or shutdown system that monitors and records
system operational parameters. The verification must verify that the
adsorber is operating with proper valve sequencing and cycle time.
(7) You must conduct weekly measurements of the carbon bed outlet
volatile organic compounds concentration over the last 5 minutes of an
adsorption cycle for each carbon bed. For regeneration cycles longer
than 1 week, you must perform the measurement over the last 5 minutes
of each adsorption cycle for each carbon bed. The outlet concentration
of volatile organic compounds must be measured using a portable
analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
for open-ended lines. Alternatively, outlet concentration of HAP(s) may
be measured using chromatographic analysis using Method 18 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-6.
(e) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring. If you are using a non-
regenerative adsorber, or canister type system that is sent off site
for regeneration or disposal, to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.11925(c), you must install a system of dual adsorber units in series
and conduct the monitoring and bed replacement as specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Establish the average adsorber bed life by conducting daily
monitoring of the outlet volatile organic compound or HAP
concentration, as specified in this paragraph (e)(1), of the first
adsorber bed in series until breakthrough occurs for the first three
adsorber bed change-outs. The outlet concentration of volatile organic
compounds must be measured using a portable analyzer, in accordance
with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, for open-ended lines.
Alternatively, outlet concentration of HAP may be measured using
chromatographic analysis using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
6. Breakthrough of the bed is defined as the time when the level of HAP
detected is at the highest concentration allowed to be discharged from
the adsorber system.
(2) Once the average life of the bed is determined, conduct ongoing
monitoring as specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this
section, conduct daily monitoring of the adsorber bed outlet volatile
organic compound or HAP concentration, as specified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section.
(ii) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 months of life remaining, as determined by the average primary
adsorber bed life, established in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and
the date the adsorbent was last replaced.
(iii) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 weeks of life remaining, as determined by the average primary
adsorber bed life, established in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and
the date the adsorbent was last replaced.
(3) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when
breakthrough is detected between the first and second adsorber. The
original second adsorber (or a fresh canister) will become the new
first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will become the second adsorber.
For purposes of this paragraph (e)(3), ``immediately'' means within 8
hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 gallons or
less, and within 24 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for
adsorbers greater than 55 gallons.
(4) In lieu of replacing the first adsorber immediately, you may
elect to monitor the outlet of the second canister beginning on the day
the breakthrough between the first and second canister is identified
and each day thereafter. This daily monitoring must continue until the
first canister is replaced. If the constituent being monitored is
detected at the outlet of the second canister during this period of
daily monitoring, both canisters must be replaced within 8 hours of the
time of detection of

[[Page 22922]]

volatile organic compounds or HAP at 90 percent of the allowed level
(90 percent of breakthrough definition).
(f) Condenser monitoring. If you are using a condenser to meet an
emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to
use CPMS as specified in Sec. 63.11925(c), you must install and
operate a condenser exit gas temperature monitoring device.
(g) Other control devices. If you use a control device other than
those listed in this subpart to comply with an emission limit in Table
1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in
Sec. 63.11925(c), you must comply with the requirements as specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a description of the planned monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting procedures. The Administrator will approve, deny or
modify the proposed monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as part of the review of the plan or through the review of
the permit application or by other appropriate means.
(2) You must establish operating limits for monitored parameters
that are approved by the Administrator. To establish the operating
limit, the information required in Sec. 63.11935(d) must be submitted
in the notification of compliance status report specified in Sec.
63.11985(a).
(h) Alternatives to monitoring requirements. (1) You may request
approval to use alternatives to the continuous operating parameter
monitoring listed in this section, as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.11985(c)(4) and 63.8.
(2) You may request approval to monitor a different parameter than
those established in Sec. 63.11935(d) or to set unique monitoring
parameters, as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11985(c)(5) and 63.8. Until
permission to use an alternative monitoring parameter has been granted
by the Administrator, you remain subject to the requirements of this
subpart.

Sec. 63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for
process vents?

(a) General. For each control device used to meet the emission
limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must
conduct the initial and periodic performance tests required in Sec.
63.11925(d) and (e) and as specified in Sec. 63.11896 using the
applicable test methods and procedures specified in Table 8 to this
subpart and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Process operating conditions. You must conduct performance
tests under the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
of this section, as applicable. Upon request, the owner or operator
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. In all
cases, a site-specific plan must be submitted to the Administrator for
approval prior to testing in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c). The test
plan must include the emission profiles described in Sec. 63.11925(g).
(1) Continuous process vents. For continuous process vents, you
must conduct all performance tests at maximum representative operating
conditions for the process. For continuous compliance, you must conduct
subsequent performance tests within the range of operating limit(s)
that were established for the control device during the initial or
subsequent performance tests specified in Sec. 63.11925(d) and (e). If
an operating limit is a range, then you must conduct subsequent
performance tests within the range of maximum or minimum operating
limits for the control device, which result in highest emissions (i.e.,
lowest emission reduction).
(2) Batch process operations. Testing must be conducted at absolute
worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case conditions as
specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Combination of both continuous and batch unit operations. You
must conduct performance tests when the batch process vents are
operating at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case
conditions, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section,
and at maximum representative operating conditions for the process. For
continuous compliance, you must operate the control device as close as
possible to your operating limit(s) for the control device established
during the initial or subsequent performance tests specified in Sec.
63.11925 (d) and (e). If an operating limit is a range, then you must
operate the control device as close as possible to the maximum or
minimum operating limit for the control device, whichever results in
higher emissions (i.e., lower emission reduction), unless the
Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions.
(c) Batch worst-case conditions. The absolute worst-case conditions
for batch process operations must be characterized by the criteria
presented in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The hypothetical worst-
case conditions for batch process operations must be characterized by
the criteria presented in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(1) Absolute worst-case conditions. For batch process operations,
absolute worst-case conditions are defined by the criteria presented in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if the maximum load is the most
challenging condition for the control device. Otherwise, absolute
worst-case conditions are defined by the conditions in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section. You must consider all relevant factors,
including load and compound-specific characteristics in defining
absolute worst-case conditions.
(i) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control
device contains the highest HAP mass loading rate, in pounds per hour,
capable of being vented to the control device. An emission profile as
described in Sec. 63.11925(g) must be used to identify the 1-hour
period of maximum HAP loading.
(ii) The period of time when the HAP loading or stream composition
(including non-HAP) is most challenging for the control device. These
conditions include, but are not limited to the following:
(A) Periods when the stream contains the highest combined organic
load, in pounds per hour, described by the emission profiles in Sec.
63.11925(g).
(B) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach
limits of solubility for scrubbing media.
(C) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach
limits of adsorptivity for adsorption systems.
(2) Hypothetical worst-case conditions. For batch process
operations, hypothetical worst-case conditions are simulated test
conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest hourly HAP load of
emissions that would be predicted to be vented to the control device
based on the emissions profiles described in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) or
(iii) of this section.
(3) Emission profile. For batch process operations, you must
develop an emission profile for the vent to the control device that
describes the characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the
control device under worst-case conditions. The emission profile must
be developed based on any one of the procedures described in paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Emission profile by process. The emission profile must consider
all batch emission episodes that could contribute to the vent stack for
a period of time that is sufficient to include all processes venting to
the stack and must consider production scheduling. The profile must
describe the HAP load to the device that equals the highest sum of
emissions from the episodes that can vent to the control device in any
given hour.

[[Page 22923]]

Emissions per episode must be calculated using the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.11950. Emissions per episode must be divided by the
duration of the episode only if the duration of the episode is longer
than 1 hour.
(ii) Emission profile by equipment. The emission profile must
consist of emissions that meet or exceed the highest emissions, in
pounds per hour that would be expected under actual processing
conditions. The profile must describe equipment configurations used to
generate the emission events, volatility of materials processed in the
equipment, and the rationale used to identify and characterize the
emission events. The emissions may be based on using a compound more
volatile than compounds actually used in the process(es), and the
emissions may be generated from all equipment in the process(es) or
only selected equipment.
(iii) Emission profile by capture and control device limitation.
The emission profile must consider the capture and control system
limitations and the highest emissions, in pounds per hour that can be
routed to the control device, based on maximum flow rate and
concentrations possible because of limitations on conveyance and
control equipment (e.g., fans and lower explosive level alarms).
(d) Concentration correction calculation. If a combustion device is
the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust
the emissions, the concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic
HAP, vinyl chloride, and hydrogen chloride must be corrected as
specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. If a control
device other than a combustion device is used to comply with an outlet
concentration emission limit for batch process vents, you must correct
the actual concentration for supplemental gases as specified in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons, total
organic HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected to 3-
percent oxygen (Cc) using Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.002

Where:

Cc = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic
HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected to 3-percent
oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cm = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic
HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride, dry basis, parts per
million by volume.
%O2d = Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percentage by
volume.

(2) To determine the oxygen concentration, you must use the
emission rate correction factor (or excess air), integrated sampling
and analysis procedures of Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-2, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Correct the measured concentration for supplemental gases using
Equation 2 of this section. Process knowledge and representative
operating data may be used to determine the fraction of the total flow
due to supplemental gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.003

Where:

Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of HAP, dry basis,
parts per million by volume (ppmv).
Cm = Actual concentration of HAP measured at control
device outlet, dry basis, ppmv.
Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams vented
to the control device, except supplemental gases.
Qs = total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases.

Sec. 63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission
profile?

When developing your emission profiles for batch process vents as
required in Sec. 63.11925(g), except as specified in paragraph (i) of
this section, you must calculate emissions from episodes caused by
vapor displacement, purging a partially filled vessel, heating,
depressurization, vacuum operations, gas evolution, air drying, or
empty vessel purging, using the applicable procedures in paragraphs (a)
through (h) of this section.
(a) Vapor displacement. You must calculate emissions from vapor
displacement due to transfer of material using Equation 1 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.004

(Eq. 1)Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
V = Volume of gas displaced from the vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.
Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

(b) Gas sweep of a partially filled vessel. You must calculate
emissions from purging a partially filled vessel using Equation 2 of
this section. The pressure of the vessel vapor space may be set equal
to 760 millimeters of

[[Page 22924]]

mercury (mmHg). You must multiply the HAP partial pressure in Equation
2 of this section by a HAP-specific saturation factor determined in
accordance with Equations 3 through 5 of this section. Solve Equation 3
of this section iteratively beginning with saturation factors (in the
right-hand side of the equation) of 1.0 for each condensable compound.
Stop iterating when the calculated saturation factors for all compounds
are the same to two significant figures for subsequent iterations. Note
that for multi-component emission streams, saturation factors must be
calculated for all condensable compounds, not just the HAP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.005

(Eq. 2)Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas at the temperature and
pressure of the vessel vapor space.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.
Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at saturated
conditions.
Pj = Partial pressure of individual condensable compounds
(including HAP) at saturated conditions.
PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.
t = Time of purge.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.006

Where:

Si = Saturation factor for individual condensable
compounds.
Pi = Partial pressure of individual condensable compounds
at saturated conditions.
PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space.
A = Surface area of liquid.
V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas.
Vi\sat\ = Volumetric flow rate of individual condensable
compounds at saturated vapor pressure.
Ki = Mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable
compounds in the emission stream.
Ko = Mass transfer coefficient of reference compound
(e.g., 0.83 cm/s for water).
Mo = Molecular weight of reference compound (e.g., 18.02
for water).
Mi = Molecular weight of individual condensable compounds
in the emission stream.
n = Number of condensable compounds in the emission stream.

(c) Heating. You must calculate emissions caused by the heating of
a vessel to a temperature lower than the boiling point using the
procedures in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If the contents of a
vessel are heated to the

[[Page 22925]]

boiling point, you must calculate emissions using the procedures in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(1) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are
heated is lower than the boiling point of the HAP in the vessel, you
must calculate the mass of HAP emitted per episode using Equation 6 of
this section. The average gas space molar volume during the heating
process is calculated using Equation 7 of this section. The difference
in the number of moles of condensable in the vessel headspace between
the initial and final temperatures is calculated using Equation 8 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.007

(Eq. 6)Where:

E = Mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated.
Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating
process.
PT = Total pressure in the vessel.
Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds
at initial temperature (T1).
Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds
at final temperature (T2).
MWHAP = Average molecular weight of the HAP compounds
calculated using Equation 13 of this section.
ni,1 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel
headspace at initial temperature (T1).
ni,2 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel
headspace at final temperature (T2).
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
ln = Natural logarithm.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.008

(Eq. 7)Where:

Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating
process.
V = Volume of free space in vessel.
PT = Total pressure in the vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel.
T2 = Final temperature of the vessel.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.009

Where:

V = Volume of free space in vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T1 = Initial temperature in the vessel.
T2 = Final temperature in the vessel.
Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds
at T1.
Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds
at T2.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

(2) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are
heated is at the boiling point or higher, you must calculate emissions
using the procedure in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) To calculate the emissions from heating to the boiling point
use Equations 9, 10 and 11 of this section. (Note that Pa2 =
0 in the calculation of [Delta][eta] in Equation 10 of this section.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.010

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
[Delta][eta] = The number of moles of noncondensable displaced from
the vessel, as calculated using Equation 10 of this section.
PT = Pressure in the receiver.

[[Page 22926]]

Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP determined at
the exit temperature of the condenser or at the conditions of the
dedicated receiver.
Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable
(including HAP) determined at the exit temperature of the condenser
or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor
exiting the dedicated receiver, as calculated using Equation 11 of
this section with partial pressures determined at the exit
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.012

Where:

[Delta][eta] = Number of moles of noncondensable gas displaced from
the vessel.
V = Volume of free space in the vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T1 = Initial temperature of vessel contents, absolute.
T2 = Final temperature of vessel contents, absolute.
Pan = Partial pressure of noncondensable gas in the vessel headspace
at initial (n=1) and final (n=2) temperature.
MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor
exiting the dedicated receiver.
(Pi)Tn = Partial pressure of each HAP in the vessel
headspace at initial (T1) and final (T2)
temperature of the receiver.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

(ii) While boiling, the vessel must be operated with a properly
operated process condenser. An initial demonstration that a process
condenser is properly operated must be conducted during the boiling
operation and documented in the notification of compliance status
report described in Sec. 63.11985(a). You must either measure the
liquid temperature in the receiver or the temperature of the gas stream
exiting the condenser and show it is less than the boiling or bubble
point of the HAP in the vessel; or perform a material balance around
the vessel and condenser and show that at least 99 percent of the
recovered HAP vaporized while boiling is condensed. This demonstration
is not required if the process condenser is followed by a condenser
acting as a control device or if the control device is monitored using
a CEMS.
(d) Depressurization. You must calculate emissions from
depressurization using Equation 12 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.013

Where:

E = Emissions.
V = Free volume in vessel being depressurized.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T = Temperature of the vessel, absolute.
P1 = Initial pressure in the vessel.
P2 = Final pressure in the vessel.
Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable
compounds (including HAP).
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP compounds.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
ln = Natural logarithm.

(e) Vacuum systems. You must calculate emissions from vacuum
systems using Equation 13 of this section if the air leakage rate is
known or can be approximated. The receiving vessel is part of the
vacuum system for purposes of this subpart.

[[Page 22927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.014

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
PT = Absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector
outlet conditions, if there is no receiver.
Pi = Partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver
temperature or the ejector outlet conditions.
Pj = Partial pressure of condensable (including HAP) at
the receiver temperature or the ejector outlet conditions.
La = Total air leak rate in the system, mass/time.
MWnc = Molecular weight of noncondensable gas.
t = Time of vacuum operation.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP in the emission stream,
with HAP partial pressures calculated at the temperature of the
receiver or ejector outlet, as appropriate.

(f) Gas evolution. You must calculate emissions from gas evolution
using Equation 13 in paragraph (e) of this section with mass flow rate
of gas evolution, Wg, substituted for La.
(g) Air drying. You must calculate emissions from air drying using
Equation 14 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.015

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
B = Mass of dry solids.
PS1 = HAP in material entering dryer, weight percent.
PS2 = HAP in material exiting dryer, weight percent.

(h) Empty vessel purging. You must calculate emissions from empty
vessel purging using Equation 15 of this section (Note: The term e-Ft/v
can be assumed to be 0):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.016

Where:

V = Volume of empty vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.
Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at the
beginning of the purge.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.
F = Flow rate of the purge gas.
t = Duration of the purge.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

(i) Engineering assessments. You must conduct an engineering
assessment to calculate HAP emissions or emission episodes from each
process vent that are not due to vapor displacement, partially filled
vessel purging, heating, depressurization, vacuum operations, gas
evolution, air drying or empty vessel purging. An engineering
assessment may also be used to support a finding that the emissions
estimation equations in this section are inappropriate. All data,
assumptions and procedures used in the engineering assessment must be
documented, are subject to preapproval by the Administrator, and must
be reported in the batch precompliance report. An engineering
assessment should include, but is not limited to, the items listed in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Previous test results provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the process unit.
(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(3) Maximum flow rate, HAP emission rate, concentration, or other
relevant parameter specified or implied within a permit limit
applicable to the process vent.
(4) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to the following:
(i) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to
estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations.
(ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment
design such as pump or blower capacities.
(iii) Estimation of HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions.

Sec. 63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for other emission sources?

(a) Before opening any process component (including pre-
polymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins) for any
reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride must be reduced to an amount
that occupies a volume of no more than 2.0 percent of the component's
or equipment's containment volume, or 25 gallons, whichever is larger,
at standard temperature and pressure.
(b) Before opening a polymerization reactor for any reason, the
quantity of vinyl chloride is not to exceed 0.04 pounds per ton of PVC
product, with the product determined on a dry solids basis.
(c) Any gas or vapor HAP removed from a process component in

[[Page 22928]]

accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be vented
to a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 63.11925 through 63.11950.
(d) Each gasholder in vinyl chloride service must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Each gasholder must be vented to a closed vent system and
control device meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.11925 through
63.11950.
(2) Each gasholder must operate with one or more of the following
installed on the water seal to reduce emissions:
(i) Floating balls;
(ii) Hollow floating disks;
(iii) Oil layer; and/or
(iv) Floating mats.
(3) Each gasholder must have established operating procedures that
include provisions for ensuring that the requirements of paragraph
(d)(2) of this section are met at all times except during periods of
maintenance or repair. The standard operating procedures must be
developed and implemented and made available to the Administrator upon
request.

Sec. 63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient
monitoring?

You must operate a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring
system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general
area of the affected source 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 you assume that all hydrocarbons
measured are vinyl chloride, analyzes the samples with infrared
spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative
method. You must operate the vinyl chloride monitoring system according
to a program that you develop for your affected source. You must submit
a description of the program to the Administrator within 45 days of
your compliance date, unless a waiver of compliance is granted by the
Administrator, or the program has been approved and the Administrator
does not request a review of the program. Approval of a program will be
granted by the Administrator provided the Administrator finds:
(a) The location and number of points to be monitored and the
frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable when
they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl
chloride service and size and physical layout of the affected source.
(b) 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 a 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.
(c) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a
leak is detected.
(d) 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 must be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride
equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b)
of this section. The calibration must be done with either:
(1) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in
sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of Method 106 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B,
and in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 106, or
(2) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate
concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration
gas cylinder standard must 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 Sections 8.1 and 9.2 of Method 106. The requirements in Sections
7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.2 of Method 106 for certification of cylinder
standards and for establishment and verification of calibration
standards are to be followed.

Sec. 63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for stripped resin?

(a) Emission limits. You must meet the applicable vinyl chloride
and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits for stripped
resin specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(b) Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must
develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are expected to be present
in each grade of resin produced by your PVCPU. This list must be
continuously updated and must be available for inspection by the
Administrator. This list must include the identification of each grade
of resin produced, each HAP expected to be present in that grade of
resin, and the CAS number for each HAP.
(1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and continuous
compliance as required in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, you
must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) You must analyze each resin sample for all Table 10 HAP using
the test methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(ii) You must also analyze each resin sample for any HAP that are
not a Table 10 HAP but are expected to be present in that resin sample
based on your facility-specific list of HAP using the appropriate test
method specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Demonstration of initial compliance. You must demonstrate
initial compliance for each resin stripper or for each group of resin
strippers used to process the same resin type.
(1) You must conduct an initial performance test for the resin
stripper, measuring the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP in the stripped resin at the outlet of each
resin stripper as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section.
(i) Use the test method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(ii) Collect samples when the PVCPU is producing the resin grade of
which you manufacture the most, based on the total mass per resin grade
of a given resin type produced in the 12 months preceding the sampling
event.
(iii) For continuous processes, during a 24-hour sampling period,
for each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab sample at intervals of 8
hours or per grade of PVC produced, whichever is more frequent. Each
sample must be taken as the resin flows out of the stripper.
(iv) For batch processes, during a 24-hour sampling period, for
each batch of each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab sample for each
batch. Each sample must be taken immediately following

[[Page 22929]]

the completion of the stripping operation.
(2) Demonstrate initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Calculate the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for each stripper
for each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period, using
the vinyl chloride and non vinyl-chloride HAP concentrations measured
for the grab samples collected as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
and (iv) of this section and using the calculation procedure specified
in paragraph (f) of this section to determine the total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP concentration of each sample.
(ii) Demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart based on the 24-hour arithmetic average concentrations
calculated in either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If more than one resin grade was produced during the 24-hour
sampling period, use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the 24-
hour grade weighted arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for each stripper, or for
each group of strippers used to process the same type of resin, using
the 24-hour average vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP concentrations calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section
and the mass of each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling
period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.017

Where:

AT = 24-hour average concentration of resin type T, parts
per million by weight (dry basis).
PGi = Production of resin grade Gi, pounds.
CGi = 24-hour average concentration of vinyl chloride or
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in resin grade Gi,
ppmw.
QT = Total production of resin type T over the 24-hour
sampling period, pounds.

(B) If only one resin grade was produced during the 24-hour
sampling event, use the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for the one resin
grade calculated as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section
for each stripper or calculate the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl
chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for
all strippers used to process the one grade of resin.
(d) Demonstration of continuous compliance. You must demonstrate
continuous compliance for each resin stripper or for each group of
resin strippers used to process the same resin type.
(1) On a daily basis, you must measure the concentration of vinyl
chloride in stripped resin using the test method(s) and procedures
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, and the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(2) On a monthly basis, you must measure the concentration of total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in stripped resin using the test
method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section,
and the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section.
(3) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the vinyl
chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit for
stripped resin in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart as specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(e) Test methods and procedures for determining concentration of
vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must
determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. Upon request, the owner
or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(1) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you must
use the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) SW-846-8260B (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this
subpart.
(ii) SW-846-8270D (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of semivolatile organic compounds listed in table 10 of this
subpart.
(iii) SW-846-8315A (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of aldehyde compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart.
(iv) SW-846-8015C (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of alcohol compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart.
(2) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 CFR
part 61, appendix B.
(3) When using the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
of this section, for sample collection, preservation, transport, and
analysis, you must minimize loss of HAP and maintain sample integrity.
(f) Method for calculating total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentration. For each stripped resin sample analyzed using the
methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section, calculate the sum
of the measured concentrations of each HAP analyzed as required in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section by using Equation 2
to this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.018

Where:
CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP compounds in the stripped resin sample, in parts per
million by weight (ppmw).
Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the
stripped resin sample analyzed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii) of this section excluding vinyl chloride, in ppmw, where
a value of zero should be used for any HAP concentration that is
below the detection limit.

Sec. 63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for
wastewater?

(a) The concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream containing
greater than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart,
measured immediately as it leaves a piece of process equipment and
before being mixed with any other process wastewater stream, must be
reduced to the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The
applicable limits in

[[Page 22930]]

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must be met before the process wastewater
stream is mixed with any other process wastewater stream containing
vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations
less than the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before being
discharged from the affected source.
(b) Initial determination of process wastewater streams that need
to be treated. You must determine which process wastewater streams
require treatment as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section and meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section.
(1) You must collect process wastewater samples as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For treated process wastewater streams, you must collect
process wastewater samples at the outlet of the treatment process and
before the process wastewater stream is mixed with any other process
wastewater stream containing vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP concentrations less than the applicable limits specified in
Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, before being exposed to the atmosphere,
and before being discharged from the affected source.
(ii) For untreated process wastewater streams, you must collect
process wastewater samples at the location immediately as the stream
leaves a piece of process equipment, before being mixed with any other
process stream or process wastewater stream, before being exposed to
the atmosphere, and before being discharged from the affected source.
(2) You must measure the concentration of vinyl chloride and total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures
specified in Sec. 63.11980.
(c) Requirements for process wastewater streams that must be
treated. Each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration equal to or greater
than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, determined
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be treated to reduce the
concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
to below the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart. You must route wastewater streams through hard-piping to the
treatment process and route the vent stream from the treatment process
to a closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 63.11925 through 63.11950. You must also meet the initial
and continuous compliance requirements specified in Sec. 63.11970(a)
and Sec. 63.11975.
(d) Requirements for process wastewater streams that do not need to
be treated. For each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl
chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration less
than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, determined
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet the initial
and continuous compliance requirements specified in Sec. Sec.
63.11970(b) and 63.11975(c).
(e) Maintenance wastewater. You must comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.105 of subpart F of this part.
(f) Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. You must
develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are expected to be present
in each process wastewater stream at your PVCPU. This list must be
continuously updated and must be available for inspection by the
Administrator. This list must include the identification of each HAP
expected to be present in each process wastewater stream, and the CAS
number for each HAP.
(1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and continuous
compliance as required in Sec. Sec. 63.11970 and 63.11975 of this
subpart, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must analyze each process wastewater sample for all HAP
listed in Table 10 to this subpart using the test methods specified in
Sec. 63.11980(a)(2) and (3).
(ii) You must also analyze each process wastewater sample for any
HAP that are not listed in Table 10 to this subpart but are expected to
be present in that sample based on your facility-specific list of HAP
using the appropriate test method specified in Sec. 63.11980(a)(2).
(2) [Reserved]

Sec. 63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for process
wastewater?

(a) Demonstration of initial compliance for process wastewater
streams that must be treated. For each process wastewater stream that
must be treated as specified in Sec. 63.11965(b) and (c), you must
conduct an initial performance test for the wastewater treatment
process, measuring the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP in the wastewater stream at the outlet of
the wastewater treatment process before the wastewater is exposed to
the atmosphere, mixed with any other process stream, and before being
discharged from the affected facility, using the test method(s) and
procedures specified in Sec. 63.11980(a).
(b) Demonstration of initial compliance for process wastewater
streams that are not required to be treated. For each process
wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP concentration less than the limits specified in Tables 1 or
2 to this subpart, you must use the measurement specified in Sec.
63.11965(b)(1)(ii) to demonstrate initial compliance.

Sec. 63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for
process wastewater?

(a) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated to
reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP as specified in Sec. 63.11965(b) and (c), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. For each process wastewater stream for which you initially
determine in Sec. 63.11970(b) that treatment is not required to reduce
either vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentration, you must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated
according to Sec. 63.11965(b), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits for vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart by
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Following your demonstration of initial compliance in Sec.
63.11970(a), make monthly measurements of the vinyl chloride and total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations using the procedures and
methods specified in Sec. 63.11965(b)(1) and (2).
(2) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart on a monthly basis, using the
monthly concentration measurement specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(c) For each wastewater stream for which you initially determine in
Sec. 63.11970(b) that treatment is not required to reduce the vinyl
chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration, you
must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Conduct annual performance tests, measuring the vinyl chloride
and total

[[Page 22931]]

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations using the procedures and
methods specified in Sec. 63.11965(b)(1) and (2).
(2) If any annual performance test conducted as specified in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section results in a concentration of vinyl
chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the process
wastewater stream that is greater than or equal to the emission limits
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, then you must meet the requirements of
Sec. 63.11965(c) and you must demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance as specified in Sec. 63.11970 and this section.

Sec. 63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures
for process wastewater?

(a) Performance test methods and procedures. You must determine the
concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic
HAP using the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section. Upon request, the owner or operator
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(1) You must conduct performance tests during worst-case operating
conditions for the PVCPU when the process wastewater treatment process
is operating as close as possible to maximum operating conditions. If
the wastewater treatment process will be operating at several different
sets of operating conditions, you must supplement the testing with
additional testing, modeling or engineering assessments to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits.
(2) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you must
conduct sampling and analysis using the methods specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) SW-846-8260B (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this
subpart.
(ii) SW-846-8270D (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of semivolatile organic compounds.
(iii) SW-846-8315A (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of aldehyde compounds.
(iv) SW-846-8015C (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) for
analysis of alcohol compounds.
(3) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 CFR
part 61, appendix B.
(4) When using the methods in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this
section, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Sample collection may consist of grab or composite samples.
(ii) Samples must be taken before the process wastewater stream is
exposed to the atmosphere.
(iii) You must ensure that sample collection, preservation,
transport, and analysis minimizes loss of HAP and maintains sample
integrity.
(b) Method for calculating total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentration. For each process wastewater stream analyzed using the
methods specified in paragraph (a) of this section, calculate the sum
of the measured concentrations of each HAP analyzed as required in
Sec. 63.11965(f)(1) by using Equation 1 to this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.019

Where:
CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride
organic HAP, in parts per million by weight (ppmw).
Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the
sample analyzed pursuant to Sec. 63.11965(f)(1) excluding vinyl
chloride, in ppmw, where a value of zero should be used for any HAP
concentration that is below the detection limit.

Notifications, Reports and Records

Sec. 63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when?

In addition to the notifications and reports required in subpart A
of this part, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit
the additional information and reports specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section, as applicable.
(a) Notification of compliance status. When submitting the
notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.9(h), you must
also include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) You must include an identification of the storage vessels
subject to this subpart, including the capacity and liquid stored for
each vessel. You must submit the information specified in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section for each pressure vessel.
(2) You must include the information specified in Sec. 63.1039(a)
for equipment leaks.
(3) You must include an identification of the heat exchange systems
that are subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(4) You must include the operating limit for each monitoring
parameter identified for each control device used to meet the emission
limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as determined pursuant to Sec.
63.11935(d). This report must include the information in Sec.
63.11935(d)(2), as applicable.
(5) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for process vents.
(i) You must include the performance test records specified in
Sec. 63.11990(f)(1), as applicable. These reports must include one
complete test report for each test method used for each process vent. A
complete test report must include a brief process description, sampling
site description, description of sampling and analysis procedures and
any modifications to standard procedures, quality assurance procedures,
record of operating conditions during the test, record of preparation
of standards, record of calibrations, raw data sheets for field
sampling, raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses,
documentation of calculations and any other information required by the
test method. For additional tests performed for the same kind of
emission point using the same method, the results and any other
information required in applicable sections of this subpart must be
submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(ii) You must include the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section for batch process vent
operations.
(A) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions
for control devices including results of emissions profiles.
(B) Calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance according
to Sec. Sec. 63.11945 and 63.11950, including documentation of the
proper operation of a process condenser(s) as specified in Sec.
63.11950(c)(2)(ii).
(C) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to
calculate emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11950(i).
(iii) If you use a control device other than those listed in Sec.
63.11940 for your process vent, then you must include a description of
the parameters to be monitored to ensure the control device is operated
in conformance with its design and achieves the specified emission
limitation; an explanation of the criteria used to select the
parameter; and a description of the methods and procedures that will be
used to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of
the control device, the schedule for this demonstration, and a
statement that you will establish an operating limit for the

[[Page 22932]]

monitored parameter as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(6) [Reserved]
(7) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for resin strippers.
(i) You must include an identification of each resin stripper and
resin type subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(ii) You must include results of the initial testing used to
determine initial compliance with the stripped resin limits in Table 1
or 2 to this subpart.
(8) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (a)(8)(i)
and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for process wastewater.
(i) You must include an identification of each process wastewater
stream subject to the requirements of this subpart, and the results of
your determination for each stream as to whether it must be treated to
meet the limits of Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must also include
a description of the treatment process to be used for each process
wastewater stream that requires treatment.
(ii) You must include results of the initial sampling used to
determine initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(9) You must include a certification of compliance, signed by a
responsible official, as applicable that states the following:
(i) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart
for storage vessels.''
(ii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart
for equipment leaks.''
(iii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this
subpart for heat exchange systems.''
(iv) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart
for HAP emissions from process vents.''
(v) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart
for other emission sources.''
(vi) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this subpart
for the stripped resin.''
(vii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in this
subpart for wastewater.''
(b) Compliance reports. When submitting the excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report
required in Sec. 63.10(e)(3), you must also include the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) of this section, as
applicable. This report is referred to in this subpart as your
compliance report.
(1) You must include a copy of the inspection record specified in
Sec. 63.11990(b)(2) for each storage vessel when a defect, failure, or
leak is detected. You must also include a copy of the applicable
information specified in Sec. 63.1039(b)(5) through (8) of subpart UU
of this part for each pressure vessel.
(2) You must include the information specified in Sec. 63.1039(b)
for equipment leaks, except for releases from pressure relief devices.
For any releases from pressure relief devices, you must submit the
report specified in paragraph (c)(7) of this section instead of the
information specified in Sec. 63.1039(b)(4) of subpart UU of this
part.
(3) You must include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section for heat exchange systems.
(i) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service.
(ii) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service found to be
leaking.
(iii) A summary of the monitoring data that indicate a leak,
including the number of leaks determined to be equal to or greater than
the leak definition.
(iv) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the
source of the leak was identified and the date of repair.
(v) If applicable, a summary of each delayed repair, including the
original date and reason for the delay and the date of repair, if
repaired during the reporting period.
(vi) If applicable, an estimate of total VOC or vinyl chloride
emissions for each delayed repair over the reporting period.
(4) You must include the records specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for process vents, resin
strippers, and wastewater.
(i) Deviations using CEMS or CPMS. For each deviation from an
emission limit or operating limit where a CEMS or CPMS is being used to
comply with the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(A)
through (E) of this section.
(A) For CEMS, the 3-hour block average value calculated for any
period when the value is higher than an emission limit in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart or when the value does not meet the data availability
requirements defined in Sec. 63.11890(c).
(B) For CPMS, the average value calculated for any day (based on
the data averaging periods for compliance specified in Table 5 to this
subpart) that does not meet your operating limit established according
to Sec. 63.11935(d) or that does not meet the data availability
requirements specified in Sec. 63.11890(c).
(C) The cause for the calculated emission level or operating
parameter level to not meet the established emission limit or operating
limit.
(D) For deviations caused by lack of monitoring data, the duration
of periods when monitoring data were not collected.
(E) Operating logs of batch process operations for each day during
which the deviation occurred, including a description of the operating
scenario(s) during the deviation.
(ii) New operating scenario. Include each new operating scenario
that has been operated since the time period covered by the last
compliance report and has not been submitted in the notification of
compliance status report or a previous compliance report. For each new
operating scenario, you must provide verification that the operating
conditions for any associated control or treatment device have not been
exceeded and constitute proper operation for the new operating
scenario. You must provide any required calculations and engineering
analyses that have been performed for the new operating scenario. For
the purposes of this paragraph (b)(4)(ii), a revised operating scenario
for an existing process is considered to be a new operating scenario
when one or more of the data elements listed in Sec. 63.11990(e)(4)
have changed.
(iii) Process changes. You must document process changes, or
changes made to any of the information submitted in the notification of
compliance status report or a previous compliance report, that is not
within the scope of an existing operating scenario, in the compliance
report. The notification must include all of the information in
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) A description of the process change.
(B) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
notification of compliance status report as provided in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(C) Information required by the notification of compliance status
report, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, for changes
involving the addition of processes, components, or equipment at the
affected source.
(5) You must submit the applicable information specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section for process vents.

[[Page 22933]]

(i) For catalytic thermal oxidizers for which you have selected the
alternative monitoring specified in Sec. 63.11940(b)(3), results of
the annual catalyst sampling and inspections required by Sec.
63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii) including any subsequent corrective actions
taken.
(ii) For regenerative adsorbers, results of the adsorber bed outlet
volatile organic compounds concentration measurements specified in
Sec. 63.11940(d)(7).
(iii) For non-regenerative adsorbers, results of the adsorber bed
outlet volatile organic compounds concentration measurements specified
in Sec. 63.11940(e)(2).
(6) You must include the records specified in Sec. 63.11990(j) for
other emission sources.
(7) For resin stripper operations, you must include results of
daily vinyl chloride and monthly total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP
concentration results for each resin type produced within the PVCPU
that did not meet the stripped resin emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart, as applicable.
(8) You must include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section for your wastewater streams.
(i) Results of daily vinyl chloride and monthly total non-vinyl
chloride organic HAP concentration results for each process wastewater
stream discharged from the affected source that did not meet the
process wastewater emission limits in Tables 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(ii) If you must comply with Sec. 63.11965, then you must include
any other applicable information that is required by the reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 63.146.
(9) For closed vent systems subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.11930, you must include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable.
(i) As applicable, records as specified in Sec. 63.11930(g)(1)(i)
for all times when flow was detected in the bypass line, the vent
stream was diverted from the control device, or the flow indicator was
not operating.
(ii) As applicable, records as specified in Sec.
63.11930(g)(1)(ii) for all occurrences of all periods when a bypass of
the system was indicated (the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line
valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has
been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been broken).
(iii) Records of all times when monitoring of the system was not
performed as specified in Sec. 63.11930(d) and (e), or repairs were
not performed as specified in Sec. 63.11930(f), or records were not
kept as specified in Sec. 63.11930(g)(2).
(iv) Records of each time an alarm on a closed vent system
operating in vacuum service is triggered as specified in Sec.
63.11930(h) including the cause for the alarm and the corrective action
taken.
(10) Closed vent system in vacuum service, bypass deviation, or
pressure vessel closure device deviation report. If any pressure vessel
closure device or closed vent system that contains a bypass has
directly discharged to the atmosphere, or any closed vent system that
is designed to be in vacuum service and is operating and but not in
vacuum service, as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.11910(c)(4), 63.11930(c)
or 63.11930(h), you must submit to the Administrator the following
information:
(i) The source, nature and cause of the discharge.
(ii) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and total HAP
emitted during the discharge and the method used for determining this
quantity.
(iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge.
(v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges
(11) Affirmative defense report. If you seek to assert an
affirmative defense, as provided in Sec. 63.11895, then you must
submit a written report as specified in Sec. 63.11895(b) to
demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that you have
met the requirements set forth in Sec. 63.11895(a).
(12) Overlap with Title V reports. Information required by this
subpart, which is submitted with a Title V periodic report, does not
need to be included in a subsequent compliance report required by this
subpart or subpart referenced by this subpart. The Title V report must
be referenced in the compliance report required by this subpart.
(c) Other notifications and reports. You must submit the other
notification and reports, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) Notification of inspection. To provide the Administrator the
opportunity to have an observer present, you must notify the
Administrator at least 30 days before an inspection required by Sec.
63.11910(a)(3). If an inspection is unplanned and you could not have
known about the inspection 30 days in advance, then you must notify the
Administrator at least 7 days before the inspection. Notification must
be made by telephone immediately followed by written documentation
demonstrating why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, the
notification including the written documentation may be made in writing
and sent so that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days
before the inspection. If a delegated state or local agency is
notified, you are not required to notify the Administrator. A delegated
state or local agency may waive the requirement for notification of
inspections.
(2) Batch precompliance report. You must submit a batch
precompliance report at least 6 months prior to the compliance date of
this subpart that includes a description of the test conditions, data,
calculations and other information used to establish operating limits
according to Sec. 63.11935(d) for all batch operations. If you use an
engineering assessment as specified in Sec. 63.11950(i), then you must
also include data or other information supporting a finding that the
emissions estimation equations in Sec. 63.11950(a) through (h) are
inappropriate. If the EPA disapproves the report, then you must still
be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice
standards of this subpart by your compliance date. To change any of the
information submitted in the report, you must notify the EPA 60 days
before you implement the planned change.
(3) Other control device reporting provisions. If you are using a
control device other than those listed in this subpart, then you must
submit the information as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) A description of the proposed control device.
(ii) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure
the control device is operated in conformance with its design and
achieves the performance level as specified in this subpart and an
explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s).
(iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and
reporting if monitoring and recording is not continuous, or if the
compliance report information, as specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A)
of this section, will not contain 3-hour block average values when the
monitored parameter value does not meet the established operating
limit. The rationale for the proposed monitoring, recording and
reporting system must be included.
(4) Request for approval to use alternative monitoring methods.
Prior to your initial notification of compliance status, you may submit
requests for approval to use alternatives to the

[[Page 22934]]

continuous operating parameter monitoring specified in this rule, as
provided for in Sec. 63.11940(h), following the same procedure as
specified in Sec. 63.8. The information specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section must be included.
(i) A description of the proposed alternative system.
(ii) Information justifying your request for an alternative method,
such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality,
of the affected source using the required method.
(5) Request for approval to monitor alternative parameters. Prior
to your initial notification of compliance status, you may submit
requests for approval to monitor a different parameter than those
established in Sec. 63.11935(d), following the same procedure as
specified for alternative monitoring methods in Sec. 63.8. The
information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section must be included in the request.
(i) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the
control technology or pollution prevention measure is operated in
conformance with its design and achieves the specified emission limit
and an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s).
(ii) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used
to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the
control device, the schedule for this demonstration, and a statement
that you will establish an operating limit for the monitored
parameter(s) as part of the notification of compliance status if
required under this subpart, unless this information has already been
submitted.
(iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and
reporting, if monitoring and recording is not continuous. The rationale
for the proposed monitoring, recording, and reporting system must be
included.
(6) [Reserved]
(7) Pressure relief device deviation report. If any pressure relief
device in HAP service has discharged to the atmosphere as specified in
Sec. 63.11915(c), then you must submit to the Administrator within 10
days of the discharge the following information:
(i) The source, nature, and cause of the discharge.
(ii) The date, time, and duration of the discharge.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and total HAP
emitted during the discharge and the method used for determining this
quantity.
(iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge.
(v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges.
(8) Commencing and ceasing operation of continuous emissions
monitoring systems. Before starting or stopping the use of CEMS you
must notify the Administrator as specified in Sec. 63.11935(b)(7).
(9) Data submittal. (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test (see Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart, you
must submit the results of performance tests electronically to the
EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data
must be submitted in the file format generated through use of the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html). Only data collected using test methods compatible with
ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to
WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information
being submitted for performance tests is confidential business
information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information
claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic
storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to the EPA.
The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S.
EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI
omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in
this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must
also submit these reports, including the confidential business
information, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the
delegated authority.
(ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation test (see Sec. 63.2), you must submit the
relative accuracy test audit data electronically into the EPA's CDX by
using the ERT, as mentioned in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section.
Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject
to this requirement to be submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX.
(iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section must be
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.
63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a
report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs
(c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

Sec. 63.11990 What records must I keep?

You must keep records as specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of
this section, as applicable.
(a) Copies of reports. You must keep a copy of each notification
and report that you submit to comply with this subpart, including all
documentation supporting any notification or report. You must also keep
copies of the current versions of the site-specific performance
evaluation test plan, site-specific monitoring plan, and the equipment
leak detection and repair plan.
(b) Storage vessels. For storage vessels, you must maintain the
records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) You must keep a record of the dimensions of the storage vessel,
an analysis of the capacity of the storage vessel and an identification
of the liquid stored.
(2) Inspection records for fixed roofs complying with Sec.
63.11910 including the information specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) Record the date of each inspection required by Sec.
63.11910(a)(3).
(ii) For each defect detected during an inspection required by
Sec. 63.11910(a)(3), record the location of the defect, a description
of the defect, the date of detection and corrective action taken to
repair the defect. In the event that repair of the defect is delayed in
accordance with Sec. 63.11910(a)(4)(ii), also record the reason for
the delay and the date that completion of repair of the defect is
expected.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) For pressure vessels, you must keep the records specified in
paragraph (c) of this section for each pressure vessel.
(5) For internal and external floating roof storage vessels, you
must maintain the records required in Sec. 63.1065 of subpart WW of
this part.
(6) For fixed roof storage vessels that route emissions through a
closed vent system to a control device, during periods of planned
routine maintenance of a control device, record the day and time at
which planned routine maintenance periods begin and end, and the type
of maintenance performed on the control device. If you need more than
240 hr/yr, keep a record that explains why additional time up to 360

[[Page 22935]]

hr/yr was needed and describes how you minimized the amount of
additional time needed.
(c) Equipment leaks. For equipment leaks, you must maintain the
records specified in Sec. 63.1038 of subpart UU of this part for
equipment leaks and a record of the information specified in Sec.
63.11930(g)(4) for monitoring instrument calibrations conducted
according to Sec. 63.11930(e)(2).
(d) Heat exchange systems. For a heat exchange system subject to
this subpart, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Identification of all heat exchangers at the facility and the
measured or estimated average annual HAP concentration of process fluid
or intervening cooling fluid processed in each heat exchanger.
(2) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are in HAP
service. For each heat exchange system that is subject to this subpart,
you must include identification of all heat exchangers within each heat
exchange system, identification of the individual heat exchangers in
HAP service within each heat exchange system, and for closed-loop
recirculation systems, the cooling tower included in each heat exchange
system.
(3) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are exempt
from the monitoring requirements according to the provisions in Sec.
63.11920(b) and the provision under which the heat exchange system is
exempt.
(4) Results of the following monitoring data for each monitoring
event:
(i) Date/time of event.
(ii) Heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return line flow
at the sampling location, gallons/minute.
(iii) Monitoring method employed.
(iv) The measured cooling water concentration for each of target
analyte (parts per billion by weight).
(v) Calibration and recovery information identified in the test
method used.
(5) The date when a leak was identified and the date when the heat
exchanger was repaired or taken out of service.
(6) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the schedule
for completing the repair, and the estimate of potential emissions for
the delay of repair.
(e) Process vent monitoring. You must include the records specified
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable, for
process vent monitoring.
(1) Continuous records. Where this subpart requires a continuous
record using CEMS or CPMS, you must maintain, at a minimum, the records
specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A).
(2) Excluded data. In any average computed to determine compliance,
you must exclude monitoring data recorded during periods specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
(ii) Periods of no flow to a control device.
(iii) Monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions or required monitoring system quality
assurance or control activities, as specified in Sec. 63.11890(c)(2).
(3) Records of calculated emission and operating parameter values.
You must retain for 5 years, a record of CEMS and CPMS data as
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless an
alternative recordkeeping system has been requested and approved.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section,
retain for 5 years, the records of the average values for each
continuously monitored operating parameter and pollutant specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.11925(e)(3)(ii) and 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B) for CEMS and
CPMS.
(ii) In lieu of calculating and recording the average value
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) of this section, if all 1-hour
averages specified in Sec. 63.11935(e) demonstrate compliance with
your parameter operating limit or the applicable pollutant emission
limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the block average period, you
may record a statement that all recorded 1-hour averages met the
operating limit or emission limit, as applicable, and retain for 5
years this statement and all recorded CPMS or CEMS data for the block
average period.
(4) Information to be included in records. You must keep records of
each operating scenario as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through
(viii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) You must keep a schedule or log of operating scenarios, updated
each time a different operating scenario is put into effect.
(ii) A description of the process and the type of process
components used.
(iii) An identification of related process vents including their
associated emissions episodes.
(iv) The applicable control requirements of this subpart for
process vents.
(v) The control device, including a description of operating and
testing conditions.
(vi) Combined emissions that are routed to the same control device.
(vii) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and
any operating limit that assures compliance for all emissions routed to
the control device.
(viii) Calculations and engineering analyses required to
demonstrate compliance.
(f) Process vents. You must include the records specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable, for process
vents.
(1) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii). You must also collect the applicable control device
operating parameters required in Sec. 63.11940 over the full period of
the performance test.
(2) If you use a control device to comply with this subpart and you
are required to use CPMS, then you must keep up-to-date and readily
accessible records for your process vents as specified in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable.
(i) If you use a flow indicator, then you must keep records of
periods of no flow to the control device, including the start and stop
time and dates of periods of flow and no flow.
(ii) If you use a catalytic oxidizer for which you have selected
the alternative monitoring specified in Sec. 63.11940(b)(3), then you
must also maintain records of the results of the annual catalyst
sampling and inspections required by Sec. 63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii)
including any subsequent corrective actions taken.
(iii) If you use a regenerative adsorber as specified in Sec.
63.11940(d), then the records specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(A)
through (H) of this section, as applicable, must be kept.
(A) Records of total regeneration stream mass flow for each
adsorber-bed regeneration cycle.
(B) Records of the temperature of the adsorber bed after each
regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle.
(C) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, records of
the temperature of the adsorber bed during each regeneration except
during any temperature regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed
temperature closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration
cycle.
(D) If adsorber regeneration vacuum is monitored pursuant to Sec.
63.11940(d)(4), then you must keep records of the

[[Page 22936]]

vacuum profile over time and the amount of time the vacuum level is
below the minimum vacuum target for each adsorber-bed regeneration
cycle.
(E) Records of the regeneration frequency and duration.
(F) Daily records of the verification inspections, including the
visual observations and/or any activation of an automated alarm or
shutdown system with a written entry into a log book or other permanent
form of record.
(G) Records of the maximum volatile organic compound or HAP outlet
concentration observed over the last 5 minutes of the adsorption cycle
for each adsorber bed. Records must be weekly or for every regeneration
cycle if the regeneration cycle is greater than 1 week.
(H) Records of the date and time the adsorbent had last been
replaced.
(iv) If you use a non-regenerative adsorber as specified in Sec.
63.11940(e), then the records specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(A)
through (C) of this section, as applicable, must be kept.
(A) A record of the average life of the bed, as determined by Sec.
63.11940(e)(1), including the date the average life was determined.
(B) Daily, weekly, or monthly records of the maximum volatile
organic compound or HAP outlet concentration, as specified by Sec.
63.11940(e)(2).
(C) Records of bed replacement including the date and time the
adsorbent had last been replaced, and the date and time in which
breakthrough is detected.
(g) Closed vent systems. You must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section, and you must record any
additional information as specified in Sec. 63.11930, as applicable.
(1) Each alarm triggered because flow was detected in a bypass as
specified in Sec. 63.11930(g)(1)(i).
(2) Inspections of seals or closure mechanisms as specified in
Sec. 63.11930(g)(1)(ii).
(3) Copies of compliance reports for closed vent system leak
inspections as specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(9) and Sec.
63.11930(g)(2) and (3).
(4) Instrument calibration records as specified in Sec.
63.11930(g)(4).
(5) Unsafe-to-inspect equipment as specified in Sec.
63.11930(g)(5).
(6) Pressure alarms as specified by Sec. 63.11930(h)(2) and (3).
(h) Resin strippers. For resin strippers, you must maintain the
records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) All resin sampling data, including daily measurements of the
concentration of vinyl chloride and monthly measurements of the total
non-vinyl chloride organic HAP compounds in the stripped resin for each
type and grade of resin produced. Each sample must be identified by the
resin type and resin grade, the date and time the sample was taken,
identification of the resin stripper from which the sample was taken,
and the corresponding quantity (pounds) of resin processed by the
stripper for the batch or over the time period represented by the
sample.
(2) The total quantity (pounds) of each resin grade produced per
day and the total quantity of resin processed by each resin stripper,
identified by resin type and resin grade, per day.
(i) Process wastewater. For treatment processes, you must maintain
the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A description of the process wastewater generation activities
and treatment process.
(2) Records of the treatment determinations specified in Sec.
63.11965(b) for each wastewater stream and the type of treatment
applied if required in Sec. 63.11965(c).
(3) Records of the initial performance test specified in Sec.
63.11970(a) and (b).
(4) All testing data, including monthly measurements of the
concentrations of vinyl chloride and the concentration of total non-
vinyl chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream required
to be measured, as specified in Sec. 63.11975.
(5) You must keep any other applicable records that are required by
the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.147 of subpart G
of this part.
(j) Other emission sources. You must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) All engineering calculations, testing, sampling, and monitoring
results and data specified in Sec. 63.11955.
(2) Each occurrence that you do not comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.11955.

Sec. 63.11995 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

(a) You must keep records for 5 years in a form suitable and
readily available for expeditious review, as specified in Sec.
63.10(b)(1).
(b) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years, as
specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records off site for
the remaining 3 years. Records may be maintained in hard copy or
computer-readable format including, but not limited to, on paper,
microfilm, hard disk drive, floppy disk, compact disk, magnetic tape or
microfiche.

Sec. 63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the
Administrator, as defined in Sec. 63.2, or a delegated authority such
as your state, local or tribal agency. If the Administrator has
delegated authority to your state, local or tribal agency, then that
agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement
and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, local or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local or tribal agency, the authorities listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the
Administrator and are not transferred to the state, local or tribal
agency, however, the EPA retains oversight of this subpart and can take
enforcement actions, as appropriate.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits, operating
limits, and work practice standards specified in this subpart.
(2) Approval of a major change to test methods, as defined in Sec.
63.90, approval of any proposed analysis methods, and approval of any
proposed test methods.
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring, as defined in Sec.
63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting, as
defined in Sec. 63.90.

Definitions

Sec. 63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section, as follows:
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that is
associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more
than one batch emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor
resulting from the charging of a vessel with HAP will result in a
discrete emission episode that will last through the duration of the
charge and will have an average flowrate equal to the rate of the
charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will also be another
discrete emission episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded
vapor. Both

[[Page 22937]]

emission episodes may occur in the same vessel or unit operation. There
are possibly other emission episodes that may occur from the vessel or
other process components, depending on process operations.
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving
intermittent or discontinuous feed into process components, and, in
general, involves the emptying of the process components after the
operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a
batch operation.
Batch process vent means a vent from a batch operation from a PVCPU
through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be
released to the atmosphere except that it is required by this subpart
to routed to a closed vent system and control device. Emissions for all
emission episodes associated with the unit operation(s) are part of the
batch process vent. Batch process vents also include vents with
intermittent flow from continuous operations. Examples of batch process
vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for
product recovery, polymerization reactors, and process tanks.
Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous
distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further
downstream processing. A rundown tank is an example of a bottoms
receiver.
Bulk process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin
that is characterized by a two-step anhydrous polymerization process:
the formation of small resin particles in a pre-polymerization reactor
using small amounts of vinyl chloride monomer, an initiator, and
agitation; and the growth of the resin particles in a post-
polymerization reactor using additional vinyl chloride monomer. Resins
produced using the bulk process are referred to as bulk resins.
Bypass means diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream
to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission
control device.
Calendar year means the period between January 1 and December 31,
inclusive for a given year.
Capacity means the nominal figure or rating given by the
manufacturer of the storage vessel, condenser, or other process
component.
Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to
change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a
way that the position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking
the seal.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow inducing devices that collect or transport gas or vapor
from an emission point to a control device.
Combustion device means an individual unit used for the combustion
of organic emissions, such as a flare, incinerator, process heater, or
boiler.
Conservation vent means an automatically operated (e.g., weight-
loaded or spring-loaded) safety device used to prevent the operating
pressure of a storage vessel from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process component. Conservation vents must be
designed to open only when the operating pressure of the storage vessel
exceeds the maximum allowable working pressure of the process
component. Conservation vents open and close to permit only the intake
or outlet relief necessary to keep the storage vessel within
permissible working pressures, and reseal automatically.
Container means a portable unit in which a material can be stored,
transported, treated, disposed of or otherwise handled. Examples of
containers include, but are not limited to, drums, pails, and portable
cargo containers known as ``portable tanks'' or ``totes.'' Container
does not include transport vehicles or barges.
Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) means the total
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and
availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition
(if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of emissions.
Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch
operation.
Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and
availability requirements of this part, used to sample, condition (if
applicable), analyze, and provide a record of process or control system
parameters.
Continuous process vent means a vent from a continuous PVCPU
operation through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the potential
to be released to the atmosphere except that it is required by this
subpart to routed to a closed vent system and control device and has
the following characteristics:
(1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any
continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU.
(2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control device
meets at least one of the following conditions:
(i) Is directly from any continuous operation.
(ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e.,
without passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose)
through one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU.
(iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy from a gas
stream that comes either directly from any continuous operation, or
from any continuous operation after passing solely (i.e., without
passing through any other unit operation for a process purpose) through
one or more recovery devices within the PVCPU.
Continuous PVCPU operation means any operation that is not a batch
operation or an operation that generates a miscellaneous process vent.
Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 15
minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in Sec.
63.11990(e)(1).
Control device means, with the exceptions noted in this definition,
a combustion device, recovery device, recapture device or any
combination of these devices used to comply with this subpart. Process
condensers are not control devices.
Control system means the combination of the closed vent system and
the control devices used to collect and control vapors or gases from a
regulated emission source.
Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove the heat
absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by transferring the heat
to the atmosphere using natural or mechanical draft.
Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines at the
inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere.
Corrective action plan means a description of all reasonable
interim and long-term measures, if any, that are available, and an
explanation of why the selected corrective action is the best
alternative, including, but not limited to, any consideration of cost-
effectiveness.
Day means a calendar day, unless otherwise specified in this
subpart.
Dioxin/furans means total tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Dispersion process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride
resin that is characterized by the formation of the polymers in soap
micelles that contain small amounts of vinyl chloride monomer.
Emulsifiers are used to

[[Page 22938]]

disperse vinyl chloride monomer in the water phase. Initiators used in
the dispersion process are soluble in water. Resins produced using the
dispersion process are referred to as latex or dispersion resins.
Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of stored
liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that contain liquid only
as a result of the liquid clinging to the walls or bottoms, or resting
in pools due to bottom irregularities, are considered completely empty.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve,
connector and instrumentation system in HAP service; and any control
devices or systems used to comply with this subpart.
Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a storage
vessel, but not necessarily to capacity.
First attempt at repair, for the purposes of this subpart, means to
take action for the purpose of stopping or reducing leakage of organic
material to the atmosphere, followed by monitoring as specified in
Sec. 63.11930(f) to verify whether the leak is repaired, unless the
owner or operator determines by other means that the leak is not
repaired.
Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is mounted
(i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move
with fluctuations in stored liquid level.
Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is,
or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be, present in a
line.
Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating
in a vessel filled with water that is used to store gases from the PVC
production process prior to being recovered or sent to a process vent
control device. The bell rises and falls as low-pressure gases enter
and leave the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal
between the enclosed gas within the floating bell and the ambient air.
Grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it as a
unique resin, i.e., the most exact description of a type of resin with
no further subdivision. Examples include low molecular weight
suspension resins and general purpose suspension resins.
Hard-piping means pipes or tubing that are manufactured and
properly installed using good engineering judgment and an appropriate
standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization
if such a method exists or you may use an industry standard practice.
Consensus-based standards organizations include, but are not limited
to, American National Standards Institute (ANSI, 1819 L Street NW., 6th
floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8020, https://www.ansi.org).
Heat exchange system means a device or collection of devices used
to transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional
direct contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact
heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers
that are serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from
the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat exchange
system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual
process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s).
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation
of a wastewater.
Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from the exit
of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat
exchangers) to either the entrance of the cooling tower return line or
prior to exposure to the atmosphere or mixing with non-cooling water
streams, in, as an example, a once-through cooling system, whichever
occurs first.
In HAP service means that a process component either contains or
contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas
that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP as determined according to the
provisions of Sec. 63.180(d). For the purposes of this definition, the
term ``organic HAP'' as used in Sec. 63.180(d) means HAP. The
provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a
process component is not in HAP service.
In vacuum service means that the process component is operating at
an internal pressure that is at least 5 kilopascals (kPa) (0.7 pounds
per square inch absolute) below ambient pressure.
Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device with an enclosed
fire box that is used for destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel
may be used to heat waste gas to combustion temperatures. Any energy
recovery section present is not physically formed into one manufactured
or assembled unit with the combustion section; rather, the energy
recovery section is a separate section following the combustion section
and the two are joined by ducts or connections carrying flue gas. This
energy recovery section limitation does not apply to an energy recovery
section used solely to preheat the incoming vent stream or combustion
air.
Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining
of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an individual drain
system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance
wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and
during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities
that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat
exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components such
as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, draining of
low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual
drain system, draining of portions of the PVCPU for repair and water
used to wash out process components or equipment after the process
components or equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere and
has met the requirements of Sec. 63.11955.
Maximum representative operating conditions means process operating
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the
control device. The most challenging condition for the control device
may include, but is not limited to, the highest or lowest HAP mass
loading rate to the control device, the highest or lowest HAP mass
loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for
scrubbing media, the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of
constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by the total HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at the
temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the liquid
storage or transfer temperature for liquids stored or transferred above
or below the ambient temperature or at the local maximum monthly
average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for
liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature, as determined
by any one of the following methods or references:
(1) In accordance with methods described in API MPMS 19.2
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(2) As obtained from standard reference texts.
(3) As determined by ASTM D2879-83 or ASTM D2879-96 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.

[[Page 22939]]

Miscellaneous vent means gaseous emissions from samples, loading
and unloading lines, slip gauges, process wastewater treatment systems
and pressure relief devices that are routed through a closed vent
system to a control device and that are not equipment leaks.
Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of
the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing
operating scenario, but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For
example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or
processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to
produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions
described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary
as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
Operating block means a period of time that is equal to the time
from the beginning to end of batch process operations within a process.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the
following midnight during which PVC is produced at any time in the
PVCPU. It is not necessary for PVC to be produced for the entire 24-
hour period.
Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and
recordkeeping, any specific operation of a regulated process as
described by reports specified in Sec. 63.11985(b)(4)(ii) and records
specified in Sec. 63.11990(e)(4).
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary or any combination thereof.
Polymerization reactor means any vessel in which vinyl chloride is
partially or totally polymerized into polyvinyl chloride. For bulk
processes, the polymerization reactor includes pre-polymerization
reactors and post-polymerization reactors.
Polyvinyl chloride means either polyvinyl chloride homopolymer or
polyvinyl chloride copolymer.
Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or PVCPU
means a collection of process components assembled and connected by
hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw materials and to
manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl chloride copolymers. A
PVCPU includes, but is not limited to, polymerization reactors; resin
stripping operations; resin blend tanks; resin centrifuges; resin
dryers; resin product separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw
material charge vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing
tanks; finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished
resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; equipment
including pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves and
connectors and instrumentation systems. A PVCPU does not include
chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in Sec. 63.101, that
produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw materials used in the PVC
polymerization process.
Polyvinyl chloride copolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic
polymer that is derived from the simultaneous polymerization of vinyl
chloride and another monomer such as vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride
copolymer is produced by different processes, including, but not
limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, and
solution processes.
Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic
polymer that is derived from the polymerization of vinyl chloride and
has the general chemical structure (-H2CCHCl-)n. Polyvinyl chloride
homopolymer is typically a white powder or colorless granule. Polyvinyl
chloride homopolymer is produced by different processes, including (but
not limited to), suspension, dispersion/emulsion, blending, and bulk
processes.
Pressure relief device means a safety device used to prevent
operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working
pressure of the process component. A common pressure relief device is a
spring-loaded pressure relief valve.
Pressure vessel means a vessel that is used to store liquids or
gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of
compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel during
filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.
Process change means an addition to or change in a PVCPU and/or its
associated process components that creates one or more emission points
or changes the characteristics of an emission point such that a new or
different emission limit, operating parameter limit, or work practice
requirement applies to the added or changed emission points. Examples
of process changes include, but are not limited to, changes in
production capacity, production rate, or catalyst type, or whenever
there is replacement, removal, or addition of recovery device
components. For purposes of this definition, process changes do not
include process upsets, changes that do not alter the process component
configuration and operating conditions, and unintentional, temporary
process changes. A process change does not include moving within a
range of conditions identified in the standard batch, and a nonstandard
batch does not constitute a process change.
Process component means any unit operation or group of units
operations or any part of a process or group of parts of a process that
are assembled to perform a specific function (e.g., polymerization
reactor, dryers, etc.). Process components include equipment, as
defined in this section.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a batch process. All condensers
recovering condensate from a batch process at or above the boiling
point or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered
process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in
series are considered to be integral to the batch regulated process if
they are capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering
chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse
or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. This definition does not
apply to a condenser that is used to remove materials that would hinder
performance of a downstream recovery device as follows:
(1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream
condenser.
(2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the
adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber.
(3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other
organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration
of a downstream adsorber.
Process tank means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel)
that is used within an affected source to both: (1) Collect material
discharged from a feedstock storage vessel, process tank, or other
PVCPU process component, and (2) discharge the material to another
process tank, process component, byproduct storage vessel, or product
storage vessel.
Process unit means the process components assembled and connected
by pipes or ducts to process raw and/or intermediate materials and to
manufacture an intended product. For the purpose of this subpart,
process unit

[[Page 22940]]

includes, but is not limited to, polyvinyl chloride production process.
Process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the
manifolding of each and all batch process vent, continuous process
vent, or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected facility into a
closed vent system and into a common header that is routed to a control
device. The process vent standards apply at the outlet of the control
device. A process vent is either a PVC-only process vent or a PVC-
combined process vent.
Process wastewater means wastewater that comes into direct contact
with HAP or results from the production or use of any raw material,
intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product
containing HAP, but that has not been discharged untreated as
wastewater. Examples are product tank drawdown or feed tank drawdown;
water formed during a chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water
used to wash impurities from organic products or reactants; water used
to cool or quench organic vapor streams through direct contact; water
discarded from a control device; and condensed steam from jet ejector
systems pulling vacuum on vessels containing organics. Gasholder seal
water is not process wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder.
Process wastewater treatment system means a specific technique or
collection of techniques that remove or destroy the organics in a
process wastewater stream to comply with Sec. Sec. 63.11965, 63.11970,
and 63.11975.
Product means a polymer produced using the same monomers and
varying in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators, etc.); catalysts;
or in the relative proportions of monomers, that is manufactured by a
process unit. With respect to polymers, more than one recipe may be
used to produce the same product, and there can be more than one grade
of a product. Product also means a chemical that is not a polymer,
which is manufactured by a process unit. By-products, isolated
intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace contaminants are not
considered products.
PVC-combined process vent means a process vent that originates from
a PVCPU and is combined with one or more process vents originating from
another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the
atmosphere.
PVC-only process vent means a process vent that originates from a
PVCPU and is not combined with a process vent originating from another
source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the atmosphere.
Recipe means a specific composition from among the range of
possible compositions that may occur within a product, as defined in
this section. A recipe is determined by the proportions of monomers
and, if present, other reactants and additives that are used to make
the recipe.
Recovery device means an individual process component capable of
and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for
fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of process components that may be
recovery devices include absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, oil-water
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such
as decanters, strippers (e.g., wastewater steam and vacuum strippers),
or thin-film evaporation units. For purposes of this subpart, recovery
devices are control devices.
Repaired, for the purposes of this subpart, means equipment that is
adjusted or otherwise altered to eliminate a leak as defined in the
applicable sections of this subpart; and unless otherwise specified in
applicable provisions of this subpart, is inspected as specified in
Sec. 63.11930(f) to verify that emissions from the equipment are below
the applicable leak definition.
Resin stripper means a unit that removes organic compounds from a
raw polyvinyl chloride and copolymer product. In the production of a
polymer, stripping is a discrete step that occurs after the
polymerization reaction and before drying or other finishing
operations. Examples of types of stripping include steam stripping,
vacuum stripping, or other methods of devolatilization. For the
purposes of this subpart, devolatilization that occurs in dryers or
other finishing operations is not resin stripping. Resin stripping may
occur in a polymerization reactor or in a batch or continuous stripper
separate from the polymerization reactor where resin stripping occurs.
Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a process
of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any other
significant contributing cause(s), of a discharge of gases in excess of
specified thresholds.
Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow
rate, pH, or liquid level.
Slip gauge means a gauge that has a probe that moves through the
gas/liquid interface in a storage vessel and indicates the level of
product in the vessel by the physical state of the material the gauge
discharges.
Solution process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride
copolymer resin that is characterized by the anhydrous formation of the
polymer through precipitation. Polymerization occurs in an organic
solvent in the presence of an initiator where vinyl chloride monomer
and co-monomers are soluble in the solvent, but the polymer is not. The
PVC copolymer is a granule suspended in the solvent, which then
precipitates out of solution. Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not
used in the solution process. PVC copolymer resins produced using the
solution process are referred to as solution resins.
Specific gravity monitoring device means a unit of equipment used
to monitor specific gravity and having a minimum accuracy of 0.02 specific gravity units.
Standard procedure means a formal written procedure officially
adopted by the plant owner or operator and available on a routine basis
to those persons responsible for carrying out the procedure.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel)
that is part of an affected source and is used to store a gaseous,
liquid, or solid feedstock, byproduct, or product that contains organic
HAP. Storage vessel does not include:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Process tanks;
(3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 10,040 gallons;
(4) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP only
as impurities;
(5) Bottoms receiver tanks;
(6) Surge control vessels; and
(7) Wastewater storage tanks. Wastewater storage tanks are covered
under the wastewater provisions.
Stripped resin means the material exiting the resin stripper that
contains polymerized vinyl chloride.
Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to a vent
stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. Air that is
part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of the unit operation
is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to operate
combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental combustion
air. Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic
oxidizers, to include the intermittent addition of air upstream of the
catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the
catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is
not considered to be supplemental combustion air.

[[Page 22941]]

Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and
intermediate vessels used as a part of any continuous operation. Surge
control vessels are used within an affected source when in-process
storage, mixing, or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to
introduce material into continuous operations. Surge control vessels
also include gasholders.
Suspension blending process means a process for producing polyvinyl
chloride resin that is similar to the suspension polymerization
process, but employs a rate of agitation that is significantly higher
than the highest range for non-blending suspension resins. The
suspension blending process uses a recipe that creates extremely small
resin particles, generally equal to or less than 100 microns in size,
with a glassy surface and very little porosity. The suspension blending
process concentrates the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically
designed to handle these small particles. Polyvinyl chloride resins
produced using the suspension blending process are referred to as
suspension blending resins and are typically blended with dispersion
resins.
Suspension process means a process for producing polyvinyl chloride
resin that is characterized by the formation of the polymers in
droplets of liquid vinyl chloride monomer or other co-monomers
suspended in water. The droplets are formed by agitation and the use of
protective colloids or suspending agents. Initiators used in the
suspension process are soluble in vinyl chloride monomer. Polyvinyl
chloride resins produced using the suspension process are referred to
as suspension resins.
Table 10 HAP means a HAP compound listed in table 10 of this
subpart.
Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP means, for the purposes of
this subpart, the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP, as
calculated according to the procedures specified in Sec. Sec.
63.11960(f) and 63.11980(b).
Type of resin means the broad classification of PVC homopolymer and
copolymer resin referring to the basic manufacturing process for
producing that resin, including, but not limited to, suspension,
dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, bulk, and solution processes.
Unloading operations means the transfer of organic liquids from a
transport vehicle, container, or storage vessel to process components
within the affected source.
Wastewater means process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The
following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this
subpart:
(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(3) Spills;
(4) Water from safety showers;
(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the
method of analysis that is used;
(6) Equipment leaks;
(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses
after cleaning lines; and
(8) Noncontact cooling water.
Wastewater stream means a stream that contains only wastewater as
defined in this section.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for an affected
For this type of emission point . . And for this air source producing this You must meet this
. pollutant . . . type of PVC resin . . emission limit . . .
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PVC-only process vents \a\........ a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 6.0 parts per million
by volume (ppmv).
b. Total hydrocarbons.. All resin types........ 9.7 ppmv measured as
propane.
c. Total organic HAP All resin types........ 56 ppmv.
\b\.
d. Hydrogen chloride... All resin types........ 78 ppmv.
e. Dioxins/furans All resin types........ 0.038 nanograms per dry
(toxic equivalency standard cubic meter
basis). (ng/dscm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PVC-combined process vents \a\.... a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 1.1 ppmv.
b. Total hydrocarbons.. All resin types........ 4.2 ppmv measured as
propane.
c. Total organic HAP All resin types........ 9.8 ppmv.
\b\.
d. Hydrogen chloride... All resin types........ 380 ppmv.
e. Dioxins/furans All resin types........ 0.051 ng/dscm.
(toxic equivalency
basis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Stripped resin.................... a. Vinyl chloride...... i. Bulk resin.......... 7.1 parts per million
by weight (ppmw).
ii. Dispersion resin... 1300 ppmw.
iii. Suspension resin.. 37 ppmw.
iv. Suspension blending 140 ppmw.
resin.
v. Copolymer resin..... 790 ppmw.
b. Total non-vinyl i. Bulk resin.......... 170 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
ii. Dispersion resin... 240 ppmw.
iii. Suspension resin.. 670 ppmw.
iv. Suspension blending 500 ppmw.
resin.
v. Copolymer resin..... 1900 ppmw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Process Wastewater................ a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 6.8 ppmw.
b. Total non-vinyl All resin types........ 110 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.

[[Page 22942]]

Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for New Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for an affected
For this type of emission point . . And for this air source producing this You must meet this
. pollutant . . . type of PVC resin . . emission limit . . .
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PVC-only process vents \a\........ a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 0.56 ppmv.
b. Total hydrocarbons.. All resin types........ 7.0 ppmv measured as
propane.
c. Total organic HAP All resin types........ 5.5 ppmv.
\b\.
d. Hydrogen chloride... All resin types........ 0.17 ppmv.
e. Dioxins/furans All resin types........ 0.038 ng/dscm.
(toxic equivalency
basis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PVC-combined process vents \a\.... a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 0.56 ppmv.
b. Total hydrocarbons.. All resin types........ 2.3 ppmv measured as
propane.
c. Total organic HAP All resin types........ 5.5 ppmv.
\b\.
d. Hydrogen chloride... All resin types........ 1.4 ppmv.
e. Dioxins/furans All resin types........ 0.034 nanograms per dry
(toxic equivalency standard cubic meter
basis). (ng/dscm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Stripped resin.................... a. Vinyl chloride...... i. Bulk resin.......... 7.1 parts per million
by weight (ppmw).
ii. Dispersion resin... 480 ppmw.
iii. Suspension resin.. 7.3 ppmw.
iv. Suspension blending 140 ppmw.
resin.
v. Copolymer--all resin 790 ppmw.
types.
b. Total non-vinyl i. Bulk resin.......... 170 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
ii. Dispersion resin... 66 ppmw.
iii. Suspension resin.. 15 ppmw.
iv. Suspension blending 500 ppmw.
resin.
v. Copolymer resin..... 1900 ppmw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Process Wastewater................ a. Vinyl chloride...... All resin types........ 0.28 ppmw.
b. Total non-vinyl All resin types........ 0.018 ppmw.
chloride organic HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.

Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Summary of Control Requirements
for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the vapor Then, you must use
If the storage vessel capacity pressure \a\ the following type of
(gallons) is . . . (psia) is . . . storage vessel . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20,000 but <40,000.......... >=4.............. Internal floating
roof, external
floating roof, or
fixed roof vented to
a closed vent system
and control device
achieving 95 percent
reduction.\b\
>=40,000...................... >=0.75........... Internal floating
roof, external
floating roof, or
fixed roof vented to
a closed vent system
and control device
achieving 95 percent
reduction.\b\
Any capacity.................. >11.1............ Pressure vessel.\c\
All other capacity and vapor pressure Fixed roof.\d\
combinations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at storage temperature.
\b\ If using a fixed roof storage vessel vented to a closed vent system
and control device, you must meet the requirements in Sec.
63.11910(a) for fixed roof storage vessels. If using an internal
floating roof storage vessel or external floating roof storage
vessels, you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.11910(b) for
internal floating roof storage vessels or external floating roof
storage vessels, as applicable.
\c\ Meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.11910(c) for pressure vessels.
\d\ Meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.11910(a) for fixed roof
storage vessels.

Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of the General Provisions to Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject HHHHHHH Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4), (a)(6), Applicability.......... Yes. .......................
(a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3),
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e).
Sec. 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), [Reserved]............. No. .......................
(b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
are found in Sec.
63.12005.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Units and abbreviations Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c).. Prohibited activities Yes. .......................
and circumvention.
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)............. [Reserved]............. No. .......................

[[Page 22943]]

Sec. 63.5(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), Preconstruction review Yes. .......................
(b)(4), (b)(6), (d)-(f). and notification
requirements.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2), (b)(5), (c)....... [Reserved]............. No. .......................
Sec. 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), Compliance with Yes.................... Sec. 63.11875
(b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), standards and specifies compliance
(e)(1)(iii), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g), maintenance dates.
(i), (j). requirements.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), [Reserved] No..................... .......................
(d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(2)(ii),
(h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), Startup, shutdown, and No. See Sec. .......................
(e)(3), (f)(1). malfunction provisions. 63.11890(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1), (h)(2)(i), Compliance with opacity No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
(h)(2)(iii), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)- and visible emission not specify opacity or
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(5)(v), (h)(6)- standards. visible emission
(h)(9). standards.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), Performance testing Yes. .......................
(a)(4), (b)-(d), (e)(2)-(e)(4), (f), requirements.
(g)(1), (g)(3), (h).
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(i)-(viii).......... [Reserved]............. No. .......................
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix)................ Performance testing Yes. .......................
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Performance testing.... No. See especially Sec. .......................
63.11945,
63.11960(d),
63.11980(a).
Sec. 63.7(g)(2).................... [Reserved]............. No..................... .......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), Monitoring requirements Yes.................... Except cross reference
(b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)- in Sec.
(c)(4), (c)(6)-(c)(8). 63.8(c)(1)(i) to Sec.
63.6(e)(1) is
replaced with a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.11890(b).
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................... [Reserved]............. No. .......................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... Requirement to develop No. .......................
SSM plan for
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................... Continuous opacity No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
monitoring system not have opacity or
minimum procedures. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(d)....................... Written procedures for Yes, except for last .......................
continuous monitoring sentence, which refers
systems. to an SSM plan. SSM
plans are not required.
Sec. 63.8(e)....................... Continuous monitoring Yes. .......................
systems performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)....................... Use of an alternative Yes. .......................
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... Reduction of monitoring Yes.................... Except that the minimum
data. data collection
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.11935(e).
Sec. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), Notification Yes. .......................
(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), (b)(5), (c)- requirements.
(e), (g)(1), (g)(3), (h)(1)-(h)(3),
(h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j).
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of opacity No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
and visible emission not have opacity or
observations. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2).................... Use of continuous No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
opacity monitoring not require the use of
system data. continuous opacity
monitoring system.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii)-(iv), [Reserved]............. No. .......................
(h)(4).
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1).............. Recordkeeping and Yes. .......................
reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)................ Recordkeeping of No. .......................
occurrence and
duration of startups
and shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... Recordkeeping of No. See Sec. Sec. .......................
malfunctions. 63.11895(b),
63.11985(b)(4)(i),
63.11985(b)(9) through
(11), and
63.11985(c)(7).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Maintenance records.... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v).... Actions taken to No. .......................
minimize emissions
during SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes. .......................
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(x).......... Other CMS requirements. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xi)-(xiv)......... Other recordkeeping Yes. .......................
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Recordkeeping Yes. .......................
requirement for
applicability
determinations.

[[Page 22944]]

Sec. 63.10(c)(1), (c)(5), (c)(6)... Additional Yes. .......................
recordkeeping
requirements for
sources with
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4), (c)(9)....... [Reserved]............. No. .......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)................... Additional Yes. .......................
recordkeeping
requirements for CMS--
identifying
exceedances and excess
emissions during SSM.
Sec. 63.10(c)(8)................... Additional Yes. .......................
recordkeeping
requirements for CMS--
identifying
exceedances and excess
emissions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10).................. Recording nature and No. See Sec. Sec. .......................
cause of malfunctions. 63.11895(b),
63.11985(b)(4)(i),
63.11985(b)(9) through
(11), and
63.11985(c)(7).
63.10(c)(11), (c)(12)................ Recording corrective No. See Sec. Sec. .......................
actions. 63.11895(b),
63.11985(b)(4)(i),
63.11985(b)(9) through
(11), and
63.11985(c)(7).
Sec. 63.10(c)(13)-(14)............. Records of the total Yes. .......................
process operating time
during the reporting
period and procedures
that are part of the
continuous monitoring
system quality control
program.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).................. Use SSM plan........... No. .......................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... General reporting Yes. .......................
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Performance test Yes. .......................
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... Opacity or visible No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
emissions observations. not specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Progress reports....... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... SSM reports............ No. See Sec. Sec. .......................
63.11895(b),
63.11985(b)(4)(i),
63.11985(b)(9) through
(11), and
63.11985(c)(7).
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)................... Additional continuous Yes. .......................
monitoring system
reports--general.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(i)................ Results of continuous Yes. .......................
monitoring system
performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............... Results of continuous No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
opacity monitoring not require the use of
system performance continuous opacity
evaluations. monitoring system.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Excess emissions/ Yes. .......................
continuous monitoring
system performance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... Continuous opacity No..................... Subpart HHHHHHH does
monitoring system data not require the use of
reports. continuous opacity
monitoring system.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Recordkeeping/reporting Yes. .......................
waiver.
63.11(a)............................. Control device and work Yes. .......................
practice requirements--
applicability.
Sec. 63.11(b)...................... Flares................. No..................... Facilities subject to
subpart HHHHHHH do not
use flares as control
devices, as specified
in Sec. 63.11925(b).
Sec. 63.11(c)-(e).................. Alternative work Yes. .......................
practice for
monitoring equipment
for leaks.
Sec. 63.12......................... State authority and Yes.................... Sec. 63.12000
delegations. identifies types of
approval authority
that are not
delegated.
Sec. 63.13......................... Addresses.............. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporations by Yes.................... Subpart HHHHHHH
reference. incorporates material
by reference.
Sec. 63.15......................... Availability of Yes. .......................
information and
confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16......................... Performance track Yes. .......................
provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22945]]

Table 5 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Operating Parameters, Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recording and
Compliance Frequencies for Process Vents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establish the Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance
following using these minimum frequencies
For these control devices, you operating limit -----------------------------------------------------------
must monitor these operating during your
parameters . . . initial Data averaging
performance test Data measurement Data recording period for
. . . compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Vents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow to/from the control device. N/A............... Continuous........ N/A............... Date and time of
flow start and
stop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Oxidizers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature (in fire box or Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
downstream ductwork prior to temperature. average.
heat exchange).
Temperature differential across Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
catalyst bed. temperature average.
differential.
Inlet temperature to catalyst Minimum inlet Continuous for Every 15 minutes 3-hour block
bed and catalyst condition. temperature and temperature, for temperature, average for
catalyst annual for annual for temperature,
condition as catalyst catalyst annual for
specified in condition. condition. catalyst
63.11940 (b)(3). condition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorbers and Acid Gas Scrubbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influent liquid flow............ Minimum inlet Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
liquid flow. average.
Influent liquid flow and gas Minimum influent Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
stream flow. liquid flow to average.
gas stream flow
ratio.
Pressure drop................... Minimum pressure Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
drop. average.
Exhaust gas temperature......... Maximum exhaust Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
gas temperature. average.
Change in specific gravity of Minimum change in Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
scrubber liquid. specific gravity. average.
pH of effluent liquid........... Minimum pH........ Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
average.
Causticity of effluent liquid... Minimum causticity Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
average.
Conductivity of effluent liquid. Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
conductivity. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regenerative Adsorber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneration stream flow. Minimum total flow Continuous........ N/A............... Total flow for
per regeneration each regeneration
cycle. cycle.
Adsorber bed temperature. Maximum Continuously after Every 15 minutes 3-hour block
temperature. regeneration and after average.
within 15 minutes regeneration and
of completing any within 15 minutes
temperature of completing any
regulation. temperature
regulation.
Adsorber bed temperature. Minimum Continuously N/A............... Average of
temperature. during regeneration
regeneration cycle.
except during any
temperature
regulating
portion of the
regeneration
cycle.
Vacuum and duratio of Minimum vacuum and Continuous........ N/A............... Average vacuum and
regeneration. period of time duration of
for regeneration. regeneration.
Regeneration frequency.......... Minimum Continuous........ N/A............... Date and time of
regeneration regeneration
frequency and start and stop.
duration.
Adsorber operation valve Correct valve Daily............. Daily............. N/A.
sequencing and cycle time. sequencing and
minimum cycle
time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regenerative Adsorber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average adsorber bed life. N/A............... Daily until N/A............... N/A.
breakthrough for
3 adsorber bed
change-outs.

[[Page 22946]]

Outlet VOC concentration of the Limits in Table 1 Daily, except N/A............... Daily, weekly, or
first adsorber bed in series. or 2 of this monthly (if more monthly.
subpart. than 2 months bed
life remaining)
or weekly (if
more than 2 weeks
bed life
remaining).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condenser
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature..................... Maximum outlet Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 3-hour block
temperature. average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/furan congener equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin..................... 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin................... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.................. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.................. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.................. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin............... 0.01
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.............................. 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran......................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran....................... 0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran....................... 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran...................... 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran...................... 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran...................... 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran...................... 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran................... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran................... 0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran.................................. 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Calibration and Accuracy
Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And your inspection/
Then your accuracy calibration
If you monitor this requirements are . . frequency
parameter . . . . requirements are . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature (non- 1 Every 12 months.
cryogenic temperature percent of
ranges). temperature
measured or 2.8
degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit)
whichever is
greater.
2. Temperature (cryogenic 2.5 Every 12 months.
temperature ranges). percent of
temperature
measured or 2.8
degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit)
whichever is
greater.
3. Liquid flow rate......... 2 a. Every 12 months.
percent of the b. You must select a
normal range of measurement
flow. location where
swirling flow or
abnormal velocity
distributions due
to upstream and
downstream
disturbances at the
point of
measurement do not
exist.
4. Gas flow rate............ 5 a. Every 12 months.
percent of the flow b. Check all
rate or 10 cubic mechanical
feet per minute, connections for
whichever is leakage at least
greater. annually.
c. At least
annually, conduct a
visual inspection
of all components
of the flow CPMS
for physical and
operational
integrity and all
electrical
connections for
oxidation and
galvanic corrosion
if your flow CPMS
is not equipped
with a redundant
flow sensor.
5. pH or caustic strength... 0.2 pH Every 8 hours of
units. process operation
check the pH or
caustic strength
meter's calibration
on at least two
points.

[[Page 22947]]

6. Conductivity............. 5 Every 12 months.
percent of normal
range.
7. Mass flow rate........... 5 Every 12 months.
percent of normal
range.
8. Pressure................. 5 a. Calibration is
percent or 0.12 required every 12
kilopascals (0.5 months.
inches of water b. Check all
column) whichever mechanical
is greater. connections for
leakage at least
annually.
c. At least annually
perform a visual
inspection of all
components for
integrity,
oxidation and
galvanic corrosion
if CPMS is not
equipped with a
redundant pressure
sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Methods and Procedures for
Conducting Performance Tests for Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each control device used to
meet the emission limit in Table
1 or 2 to this subpart for the You must . . . Using . . .
following pollutant . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Total hydrocarbons........... a. Measure the Method 25A at 40
total hydrocarbon CFR part 60,
concentration at appendix A-7.
the outlet of the Conduct each test
final control run for a minimum
device or in the of 1 hour.
stack.
2. Total organic HAP............ a. Measure the i. Method 18 at 40
total organic HAP CFR part 60,
concentration at appendix A-6 and
the outlet of the ASTM D6420-99.\a\
final control Conduct each test
device or in the run for a minimum
stack. of 1 hour.
ii. Method 320 at
40 CFR part 63,
appendix A and
ASTM D6348-03.\a\
Conduct each test
run for a minimum
of 1 hour.
3. Vinyl chloride............... a. Measure the Method 18 at 40
vinyl chloride CFR part 60,
concentration at appendix A-6.
the outlet of the Conduct each test
final control run for a minimum
device or in the of 1 hour.
stack.
4. Hydrogen chloride............ a. Measure i. Method 26 at 40
hydrogen chloride CFR part 60,
concentrations at appendix A-8,
the outlet of the collect 60 dry
final control standard liters
device or in the of gas per test
stack. run; or
ii. Method 26A at
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8,
collect 1 dry
standard cubic
meter of gas per
test run.
5. Dioxin/furan................. a. Measure dioxin/ Method 23 at 40
furan CFR part 60,
concentrations on appendix A-7 and
a toxic collect 5 dry
equivalency basis standard cubic
(and report total meters of gas per
mass per isomer) test run.
at the outlet of
the final control
device or in the
stack.
6. Any pollutant from a a. Select sampling Method 1 or 1A at
continuous, batch, or port locations 40 CFR part 60,
combination of continuous and and the number of appendix A-1.
batch process vent(s). traverse points.
b. Determine gas Method 2, 2A, 2C,
velocity and 2D, 2F, or 2G at
volumetric flow 40 CFR part 60,
rate. appendix A-1 and
A-2.
c. Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or
molecular weight 3B at 40 CFR part
analysis and 60, appendix A-2
correct using the same
concentrations sampling site and
the specified time as HAP
percent oxygen in samples.
Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart.
d. Measure gas Method 4 at 40 CFR
moisture content. part 60, appendix
A-3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14.

Table 9 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Procedures for Conducting Sampling of Stripped Resin and Process
Wastewater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collect samples according to the following
For the following schedule . . .
emission points and -------------------------------------------------
For demonstrating . . . types of processes . . Total non-vinyl
. Vinyl chloride . . . chloride organic HAP .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each stripped resin stream
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Initial compliance................ a. Continuous.......... Every 8 hours or for Every 8 hours or for
each grade, whichever each grade, whichever
is more frequent is more frequent
during a 24 hour during a 24 hour
period. period.
b. Batch............... 1 grab sample for each 1 grab sample for each
batch produced during batch produced during
a 24 hour period. a 24 hour period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22948]]

2. Continuous compliance............. a. Continuous.......... On a daily basis, 1 On a monthly basis, 1
grab sample every 8 grab sample every 8
hours or for each hours or for each
grade, whichever is grade, whichever is
more frequent during a more frequent during a
24 hour period. 24 hour period.
b. Batch............... On a daily basis, 1 On a monthly basis, 1
grab sample for each grab sample for each
batch produced during batch produced during
a 24 hour period. a 24 hour period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each process wastewater stream
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Initial compliance................ N/A.................... 1 grab sample.......... 1 grab sample.
4. Continuous compliance............. N/A.................... 1 grab sample per month 1 grab sample per
month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--HAP Subject to the Resin and Process Wastewater Provisions at New and
Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. HAP Analyte category Test method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107211......................... Ethylene glycol....... Alcohol.............. SW-846-8015C.\a\
67561.......................... Methanol.............. Alcohol.............. SW-846-8015C.\a\
75070.......................... Acetaldehyde.......... Aldehyde............. SW-846-8315A.\a\
50000.......................... Formaldehyde.......... Aldehyde............. SW-846-8315A.\a\
51285.......................... 2,4-dinitrophenol..... SVOC................. SW-846-8270D.\a\
98862.......................... Acetophenone.......... SVOC................. SW-846-8270D.\a\
117817......................... Bis(2-ethylhexyl) SVOC................. SW-846-8270D.\a\
phthalate (DEHP).
123319......................... Hydroquinone.......... SVOC................. SW-846-8270D.\a\
108952......................... Phenol................ SVOC................. SW-846-8270D.\a\
79345.......................... 1,1,2,2- VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
tetrachloroethane.
106990......................... 1,3-butadiene......... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
540841......................... 2,2,4-trimethylpentane VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
71432.......................... Benzene............... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
108907......................... Chlorobenzene......... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
67663.......................... Chloroform............ VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
126998......................... Chloroprene........... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
98828.......................... Cumene................ VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
75003.......................... Ethyl chloride VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
(Chloroethane).
100414......................... Ethylbenzene.......... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
107062......................... Ethylene dichloride VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
(1,2-Dichloroethane).
75343.......................... Ethylidene dichloride VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
(1,1-Dichloroethane).
74873.......................... Methyl chloride VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
(Chloromethane).
75092.......................... Methylene chloride.... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
110543......................... n-Hexane.............. VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
108883......................... Toluene............... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
71556/79005.................... Trichloroethane....... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
108054......................... Vinyl acetate......... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
593602......................... Vinyl bromide......... VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
75014.......................... Vinyl chloride........ VOC.................. Method 107 at 40 CFR part 61,
appendix B.
75354.......................... Vinylidene chloride VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
(1,1-
Dichloroethylene).
1330207........................ Xylenes (isomers and VOC.................. SW-846-8260B.\a\
mixtures).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14.

[FR Doc. 2012-6421 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.