22848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 http://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 http:// 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

Category NAICSa 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. 

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: http://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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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 

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 PVCcombined. PVC-only process vents 

comprise process vent streams that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22851 

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. 

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/ 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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

Pollutant 

Emission limits a

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 HAPb ....................... 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. bTotal organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. 

cProposed THC compliance limit. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR PROCESS VENTS AT NEW MAJOR SOURCES

Pollutant 

Emission limits a

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 HAPb ....................... 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. bTotal organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. 

cProposed 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 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 

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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Source Pollutant 

Bulk resin 

Proposed 

emission limits 

(ppmw) a

Final emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 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 

aAt 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

Source Pollutant 

Dispersion resin 

Proposed 

emission limits 

(ppmw) a

Final emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 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 

aAt 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

Source Pollutant 

Suspension resin 

Proposed 

emission limits 

(ppmw) a b

Final emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 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 

aAt proposal, suspension resin was included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. 

bAt 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

Source Pollutant 

Suspension blending resin 

Proposed 

Emission limits 

(ppmw) a b

Final emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 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 

aAt proposal, suspension blending resin was included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. 

bAt proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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

Source Pollutant 

Copolymer resin 

Proposed emission limits 

(ppmw) a b

Final emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 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 

aAt proposal, copolymer resins were included in the ‘‘all other resins’’ subcategory. 

bAt 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 nonvinyl 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) 

Final 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.

6 .8 

Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic 

HAP.

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.110 

New ................... Vinyl Chloride ................................ Less than 10 ppmw for streams that do not require treatment, or 

0.0060 ppmw for streams that require treatment a.

0 .28 

Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic 

HAP.

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.0 .018 

aAt proposal, if a wastewater stream contained a vinyl chloride concentration greater than 10 ppmw at the point of generation, then treatment 

was required. bAt 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Source Pollutant Proposed leak action level Proposed monitoring frequency Final leak action level Final monitoring 

frequency 

Existing ............. Total strippable VOC ......... 38 ppbw in cooling water 

or 2.9 ppmv in stripping 

gas.

Monthly ............. 50 ppbw in cooling water 

or 3.9 ppmv in stripping 

gas.

Monthly. 

Vinyl chloride ..................... NA ...................................... NA ..................... 50 ppbw in cooling water ... Monthly. 

New .................. Total strippable VOC ......... 30 ppbw in cooling water 

or 2.3 ppmv in stripping 

gas.

Every 12 hours 50 ppbw in cooling water 

or 3.9 ppmv in stripping 

gas.

Monthly. 

Vinyl chloride ..................... NA ...................................... NA ..................... 50 ppbw in cooling water ... 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. 

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 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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, 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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., 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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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

Subcategory Pollutant 

Emission limitations a

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 (THC) b .......... 9.7 ppmv as propane ................... 7.0 ppmv as propane. 

Total organic HAPb ...................... 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 (THC) b .......... 4.2 ppmv as propane ................... 2.3 ppmv as propane. 

Total organic HAPb ...................... 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. bTotal 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

Pollutant 

Emission limits (ppmw) 

Homopolymer resins 

Copolymer 

resin Bulk resin Dispersion 

resin 

Suspension 

resin 

Suspension 

blending resin 

Vinyl chloride ...................................................................... 7 .1 1,300 37 140 790 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 

Pollutant 

Emission limits (ppmw) 

Homopolymer resins 

Copolymer 

resin Bulk resin Dispersion 

resin 

Suspension 

resin 

Suspension 

blending resin 

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

TABLE 12—LIMITS FOR STRIPPED RESINS AT NEW MAJOR SOURCES

Pollutant 

Emission limits (ppmw) 

Homopolymer resins 

Copolymer 

resin Bulk resin Dispersion 

resin 

Suspension 

resin 

Suspension 

blending resin 

Vinyl chloride .................................................................... 7 .1 480 7 .3 140 790 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP .............................. 170 66 15 500 1,900 

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 

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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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

Subcategory Pollutant 

Emission limits a

Existing sources New sources 

PVC-only process vents ................ Vinyl chloride ................................ 5.3 ppmv ....................................... 5.3 ppmv. 

Total hydrocarbons (THC) b .......... 46 ppmv as propane .................... 46 ppmv as propane. 

Total organic HAPb ...................... 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 (THC) b .......... 2.3 ppmv as propane ................... 2.3 ppmv as propane. 

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. bTotal 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

Subcategory Pollutant 

Emission limits (ppmw) 

Existing 

sources New sources 

Bulk resin .................................................................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 7 .1 7 .1 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... 170 170 

Suspension ................................................................. Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 36 36 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... 36 36 

Dispersion ................................................................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 1,500 1,500 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... 320 320 

Suspension blending .................................................. Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 140 140 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... 500 500 

Copolymer ................................................................... Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 790 790 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP ......................... 1,900 1,900 

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

Pollutant 

Emission 

limits 

(ppmw) 

Vinyl chloride .............................. 2 .1 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP ......................................... 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 http://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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

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 http://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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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, 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22866 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1As 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. 

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

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22867 

2 ‘‘Grade’’ of PVC resin is more specific than 

‘‘type’’ of PVC resin. See definitions in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart HHHHHHH. 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22869 

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 

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 


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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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. 

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 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. 

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 


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) 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 bestperforming 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 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3We 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. 

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) 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 


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. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 ‘‘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 


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. 

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 longstanding recognition by the EPA that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22882 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22886 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4CAA 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 

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22887 

emissions for which the category was listed under 

CAA section 112(c)(3). 

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 

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: 

* * * 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 


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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control 

Incremental 

annual cost 

of 

compliance 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy—total 

HAP) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton total 

HAP) 

PVC-only process vents Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 180,245 0.257 701,814 

PVC- combined process 

vents.

Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 10,890 0 (a) 

Stripped resins (all subcategories).Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,615 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 10,615 0 (a) 

Process and maintenance wastewater.Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 19,777 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 19,777 0 (a) 

New Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ................. 2,996,390 12.2 245,516 

Equipment leaks ............ Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 72,525 9.29 7,807 

Heat exchangers ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 25,529 15.1 1,691 

Other emission sources Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 3,108 0 b $4,921 

Storage tanks ................ Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 3,108 0 c 2,000– 

12,000 

aOption does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable. 

bEmission 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. cEmissions 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

Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control 

Incremental 

annual cost 

of compliance 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy—total 

HAP) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton total 

HAP) 

PVC-only process vents Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 180,245 0.257 701,814 

PVC-combined process 

vents.

Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,890 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 10,890 0 (a) 

Stripped resins (all subcategories).Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 10,615 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 10,615 0 (a) 

Process and maintenance wastewater.Major Source Testing and Monitoring ......................................................... 9,888 0 (a) 

Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 9,888 0 (a) 

New Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ................. 1,988,368 8.91 223,169 

Equipment leaks ............ Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 36,263 4.64 7,807 

Heat exchangers ........... Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 12,764 11.4 1,117 

Other emission sources Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 3,032 0.616 4,922 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 

Emission point Control option analyzed beyond current level of control 

Incremental 

annual cost 

of compliance 

($/yr) 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy—total 

HAP) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton total 

HAP) 

Storage tanks ................ Existing Major Source emission standards, monitoring and testing ........... 1,554 0 b 2,000– 

12,000 

aOption does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness was not applicable. 

bEmissions 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 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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., 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 

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. 


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. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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-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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Emission point 

Pollutant emission reductions (tpy) 

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 

aEmission 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

Emission point 

Vinyl 

chloride 

(tpy) 

Dioxin/furan 

(g/yr) 

Total HAP 

(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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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

Emission point 

Total initial 

cost 

(million 

2010$) a

Total annual 

cost 

(million 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 

aTotal initial costs for facilities include the capital cost of control equipment, testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. bTotal 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

Emission point 

Total initial 

cost 

(million$) 

Total annual 

cost 

(million$) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/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) 

aTotal initial cost for process vents includes initial recordkeeping and reporting costs (which include year 1 annual costs) and initial process 

vent testing. bTotal 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. cStandard does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost effectiveness is not applicable. 

dTotal 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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, 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

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. 

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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22903 

5U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

6Mohai P. Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice 

Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 

7Mennis 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. 

8Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

9The 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. 

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.5678 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

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 (http:// 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22905 

(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 

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 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(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. 

(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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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; §§ 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 .................................... 5.3 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). 

Total hydrocarbons ............................ All resin types .................................... 46 ppmv measured as propane. 

Total organic HAPb. .......................... All resin types .................................... 140 ppmv. 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types .................................... 0.13 nanograms per dry 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 HAPb ........................... All resin types .................................... 29 ppmv. 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types .................................... 0.076 ng/dscm. 

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 resin ................ 140 ppmw. 

Copolymer resin ................................ 790 ppmw. 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP Bulk resin ........................................... 170 ppmw. 

Dispersion resin ................................. 320 ppmw. 

Suspension resin ............................... 36 ppmw. 

Suspension blending resin ................ 500 ppmw. 

Copolymer resin ................................ 1,900 ppmw. 

Process Wastewater ........ Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... 2.1 ppmw. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

aEmission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

bAffected 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 .................................... 5.3 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). 

Total hydrocarbons ............................ All resin types .................................... 46 ppmv measured as propane 

Total organic HAPb ........................... All resin types .................................... 140 ppmv. 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types .................................... 0.13 nanograms per dry 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 HAPb ........................... All resin types .................................... 29 ppmv 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types .................................... 0.076 ng/dscm. 

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 resin ................ 140 ppmw. 

Copolymer resin ................................ 790 ppmw. 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP Bulk resin ........................................... 170 ppmw. 

Dispersion resin ................................. 320 ppmw. 

Suspension resin ............................... 36 ppmw. 

Suspension blending resin ................ 500 ppmw. 

Copolymer resin ................................ 1,900 ppmw. 

Process Wastewater ........ Vinyl chloride ..................................... All resin types .................................... 2.1 ppmw. 

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP All resin types .................................... 0.018 ppmw. 

aEmission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

bAffected 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 

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? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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? 

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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

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 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 §§ 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22909 

(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. 

§ 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 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

§ 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. 

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). 

(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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 §§ 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 

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 


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. 

§ 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. 

(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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

rCW = Density of cooling water, pounds per 

gallon (lb/gal). 

Ddelay = Expected duration of the repair delay, 

days. 

§ 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 

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 

§§ 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 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 § 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22915 

(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 

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. 

(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: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.001</GPH>
22916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

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). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 


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 

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. 

(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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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). 

§ 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). 

(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. 

(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 


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. 

§ 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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

§ 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 

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. 

(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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

(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 § 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: 

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. 

§ 63.11950 What emissions calculations 

must I use for an emission profile? 

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, 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.002</GPH> ER17AP12.003</GPH> ER17AP12.004</GPH>
22924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 multicomponent emission streams, saturation 

factors must be calculated for all 

condensable compounds, not just the 

HAP. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.005</GPH> ER17AP12.006</GPH>
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. 

(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 

Dh in Equation 10 of this section.) 

Where: 

E = Mass of HAP emitted. 

Dh = The number of moles of 

noncondensable displaced from the 

vessel, as calculated using Equation 10 of 

this section. 

PT = Pressure in the receiver. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.007</GPH> ER17AP12.008</GPH> ER17AP12.009</GPH> ER17AP12.010</GPH>
22926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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. 

(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 

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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.011</GPH> ER17AP12.012</GPH> ER17AP12.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22927 

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: 

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): 

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. 

§ 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.014</GPH> ER17AP12.015</GPH> ER17AP12.016</GPH>
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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22929 

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 

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 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. 

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 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. 

(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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.017</GPH> ER17AP12.018</GPH>
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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22931 

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. 

§ 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 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER17AP12.019</GPH>
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 

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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22933 

(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 

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 

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 


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. 

(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) 

(http://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 http://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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 

(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. 

(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 


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 

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. 

§ 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 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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. 

(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 


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 

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, http://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 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

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 

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 


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. 

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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 ............................... 6.0 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). 

b. Total hydrocarbons ................... All resin types ............................... 9.7 ppmv measured as propane. 

c. Total organic HAPb .................. All resin types ............................... 56 ppmv. 

d. Hydrogen chloride .................... All resin types ............................... 78 ppmv. 

e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).All resin types ............................... 0.038 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (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 HAPb .................. All resin types ............................... 9.8 ppmv. 

d. Hydrogen chloride .................... All resin types ............................... 380 ppmv. 

e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).All resin types ............................... 0.051 ng/dscm. 

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 resin ...... 140 ppmw. 

v. Copolymer resin ....................... 790 ppmw. 

b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP.

i. Bulk resin ................................... 170 ppmw. 

ii. Dispersion resin ........................ 240 ppmw. 

iii. Suspension resin ..................... 670 ppmw. 

iv. Suspension blending resin ...... 500 ppmw. 

v. Copolymer resin ....................... 1900 ppmw. 

4. Process Wastewater .................. a. Vinyl chloride ............................ All resin types ............................... 6.8 ppmw. 

b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP.

All resin types ............................... 110 ppmw. 

aEmission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

bTotal organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 ............................ All resin types ............................... 0.56 ppmv. 

b. Total hydrocarbons ................... All resin types ............................... 7.0 ppmv measured as propane. 

c. Total organic HAPb .................. All resin types ............................... 5.5 ppmv. 

d. Hydrogen chloride .................... All resin types ............................... 0.17 ppmv. 

e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).All resin types ............................... 0.038 ng/dscm. 

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 HAPb .................. All resin types ............................... 5.5 ppmv. 

d. Hydrogen chloride .................... All resin types ............................... 1.4 ppmv. 

e. Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).All resin types ............................... 0.034 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (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 resin ...... 140 ppmw. 

v. Copolymer—all resin types ...... 790 ppmw. 

b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP.

i. Bulk resin ................................... 170 ppmw. 

ii. Dispersion resin ........................ 66 ppmw. 

iii. Suspension resin ..................... 15 ppmw. 

iv. Suspension blending resin ...... 500 ppmw. 

v. Copolymer resin ....................... 1900 ppmw. 

4. Process Wastewater .................. a. Vinyl chloride ............................ All resin types ............................... 0.28 ppmw. 

b. Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP.

All resin types ............................... 0.018 ppmw. 

aEmission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

bTotal 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 ................................................... 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 combinations .................................. Fixed roof.d

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 § 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. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PART 63 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart HHHHHHH Comment 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)– 

(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e).

Applicability ................................... Yes. 

§ 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), 

(c)(3), (c)(4), (d).

[Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 63.2 ............................................. Definitions ..................................... Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are found in 

§ 63.12005. 

§ 63.3 ............................................. Units and abbreviations ................ Yes. 

§ 63.4(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c) ............. Prohibited activities and circumvention.Yes. 

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(a)(5) .......................... [Reserved] .................................... No. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 Comment 

§ 63.5(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(b)(6), (d)–(f).

Preconstruction review and notification requirements.Yes. 

§ 63.5(b)(2), (b)(5), (c) ................... [Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 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).

Compliance with standards and 

maintenance requirements.

Yes ................................................ § 63.11875 specifies compliance 

dates. 

§ 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), 

(e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), 

(h)(5)(iv).

[Reserved] No .................................................

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(3), 

(f)(1).

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions.No. See § 63.11890(b) for general 

duty requirement.

§ 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).

Compliance with opacity and visible emission standards.No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not 

specify opacity or visible emission standards. 

§ 63.7(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), 

(b)–(d), (e)(2)–(e)(4), (f), (g)(1), 

(g)(3), (h).

Performance testing requirements Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(viii) ......................... [Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 63.7(a)(2)(ix) ................................ Performance testing requirements Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Performance testing ..................... No. See especially § 63.11945, 

63.11960(d), 63.11980(a).

§ 63.7(g)(2) ..................................... [Reserved] .................................... No. ................................................

§ 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), 

(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)–(c)(4), 

(c)(6)–(c)(8).

Monitoring requirements ............... Yes ................................................ Except cross reference in 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) to § 63.6(e)(1) is 

replaced with a cross-reference 

to § 63.11890(b). 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ..................................... [Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ Requirement to develop SSM 

plan for continuous monitoring 

systems.

No. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system minimum procedures.

No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not 

have opacity or visible emission 

standards. 

§ 63.8(d) ......................................... Written procedures for continuous 

monitoring systems.

Yes, except for last sentence, 

which refers to an SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not required.

§ 63.8(e) ......................................... Continuous monitoring systems 

performance evaluation.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(f) .......................................... Use of an alternative monitoring 

method.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(g) ......................................... Reduction of monitoring data ....... Yes ................................................ Except that the minimum data collection requirements are specified in § 63.11935(e). 

§ 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).

Notification requirements .............. Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of opacity and visible 

emission observations.

No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not 

have opacity or visible emission 

standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(2) ..................................... Use of continuous opacity monitoring system data.No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous 

opacity monitoring system. 

§ 63.9(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii)–(iv), (h)(4) .... [Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1) ............................ Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... Recordkeeping of occurrence and 

duration of startups and shutdowns.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... Recordkeeping of malfunctions .... No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 

63.11985(b)(4)(i), 

63.11985(b)(9) through (11), 

and 63.11985(c)(7).

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. Maintenance records .................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v) ............... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM.No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(x) ....................... Other CMS requirements ............. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xi)–(xiv) ..................... Other recordkeeping requirements Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................................... Recordkeeping requirement for 

applicability determinations.

Yes. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 Applies to subpart HHHHHHH Comment 

§ 63.10(c)(1), (c)(5), (c)(6) ............. Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems.Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(2)–(4), (c)(9) .................. [Reserved] .................................... No. 

§ 63.10(c)(7) ................................... Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying 

exceedances and excess emissions during SSM.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(8) ................................... Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying 

exceedances and excess emissions.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(10) ................................. Recording nature and cause of 

malfunctions.

No. See §§ 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 actions ........ No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 

63.11985(b)(4)(i), 

63.11985(b)(9) through (11), 

and 63.11985(c)(7).

§ 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.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................................. Use SSM plan .............................. No. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ................................... General reporting requirements ... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Performance test results .............. Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ................................... Opacity or visible emissions observations.No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not 

specify opacity or visible emission standards. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ................................... Progress reports ........................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... SSM reports .................................. No. See §§ 63.11895(b), 

63.11985(b)(4)(i), 

63.11985(b)(9) through (11), 

and 63.11985(c)(7).

§ 63.10(e)(1) ................................... Additional continuous monitoring 

system reports—general.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(i) ............................... Results of continuous monitoring 

system performance evaluations.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ............................... Results of continuous opacity 

monitoring system performance 

evaluations.

No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous 

opacity monitoring system. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ................................... Excess emissions/continuous 

monitoring system performance 

reports.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ................................... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system data reports.

No ................................................. Subpart HHHHHHH does not require the use of continuous 

opacity monitoring system. 

§ 63.10(f) ........................................ Recordkeeping/reporting waiver ... Yes. 

63.11(a) .......................................... Control device and work practice 

requirements—applicability.

Yes. 

§ 63.11(b) ....................................... Flares ............................................ No ................................................. Facilities subject to subpart 

HHHHHHH do not use flares as 

control devices, as specified in 

§ 63.11925(b). 

§ 63.11(c)–(e) ................................. Alternative work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks.Yes. 

§ 63.12 ........................................... State authority and delegations .... Yes ................................................ § 63.12000 identifies types of approval authority that are not delegated. 

§ 63.13 ........................................... Addresses ..................................... Yes. 

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporations by reference .......... Yes ................................................ Subpart HHHHHHH incorporates 

material by reference. 

§ 63.15 ........................................... Availability of information and 

confidentiality.

Yes. 

§ 63.16 ........................................... Performance track provisions ....... Yes. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 . . . 

Establish the following operating limit during your 

initial performance 

test . . . 

Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording 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. 

Thermal Oxidizers 

Temperature (in fire box or 

downstream ductwork 

prior to heat exchange).

Minimum temperature ....... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Temperature differential 

across catalyst bed.

Minimum temperature differential.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Inlet temperature to catalyst bed and catalyst 

condition.

Minimum inlet temperature 

and catalyst condition as 

specified in 63.11940 

(b)(3).

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. 

Absorbers and Acid Gas Scrubbers 

Influent liquid flow .............. Minimum inlet liquid flow ... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Influent liquid flow and gas 

stream flow.

Minimum influent liquid 

flow to gas stream flow 

ratio.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Pressure drop .................... Minimum pressure drop .... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Exhaust gas temperature .. Maximum exhaust gas 

temperature.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Change in specific gravity 

of scrubber liquid.

Minimum change in specific gravity.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block 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 conductivity ........ Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

Regenerative Adsorber 

Regeneration stream flow. Minimum total flow per regeneration cycle.Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Total flow for each regeneration cycle. 

Adsorber bed temperature. Maximum temperature ...... Continuously after regeneration and within 15 

minutes of completing 

any temperature regulation.

Every 15 minutes after regeneration and within 15 

minutes of completing 

any temperature regulation.

3-hour block average. 

Adsorber bed temperature. Minimum temperature ....... Continuously during regeneration except during 

any temperature regulating portion of the regeneration cycle.

N/A .................................... Average of regeneration 

cycle. 

Vacuum and duratio of regeneration.Minimum vacuum and period of time for regeneration.Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Average vacuum and duration of regeneration. 

Regeneration frequency .... Minimum regeneration frequency and duration.Continuous ........................ N/A .................................... Date and time of regeneration start and stop. 

Adsorber operation valve 

sequencing and cycle 

time.

Correct valve sequencing 

and minimum cycle time.

Daily .................................. Daily .................................. N/A. 

Non-Regenerative Adsorber 

Average adsorber bed life. N/A .................................... Daily until breakthrough for 

3 adsorber bed changeouts.

N/A .................................... N/A. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 . . . 

Establish the following operating limit during your 

initial performance 

test . . . 

Monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording Data averaging period for 

compliance 

Outlet VOC concentration 

of the first adsorber bed 

in series.

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. 

Condenser 

Temperature ...................... Maximum outlet temperature.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. 3-hour block average. 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/furan congener 

Toxic 

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

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.

Every 12 months. 

2. Temperature (cryogenic temperature 

ranges). 

±2.5 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 

degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) 

whichever is greater.

Every 12 months. 

3. Liquid flow rate ............................................... ±2 percent of the normal range of flow ........... 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. 

4. Gas flow rate .................................................. ±5 percent of the flow rate or 10 cubic feet 

per minute, whichever is greater.

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. 

5. pH or caustic strength .................................... ±0.2 pH units .................................................... Every 8 hours of process operation check the 

pH or caustic strength meter’s calibration 

on at least two points. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 .................................................... ±5 percent of normal range ............................. Every 12 months. 

7. Mass flow rate ................................................ ±5 percent of normal range ............................. Every 12 months. 

8. Pressure ......................................................... ±5 percent or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of 

water column) whichever is greater.

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 . . . 

You must . . . Using . . . 

1. Total hydrocarbons ........................................ a. Measure the total hydrocarbon 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. 

2. Total organic HAP ......................................... a. Measure the total organic HAP concentration at the outlet of the final control device 

or in the stack.

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. 

3. Vinyl chloride ................................................. a. Measure the vinyl chloride concentration at 

the outlet of the final control device or in the 

stack.

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. 

Conduct each test run for a minimum of 1 

hour. 

4. Hydrogen chloride ......................................... a. Measure hydrogen chloride concentrations 

at the outlet of the final control device or in 

the stack.

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. 

5. Dioxin/furan ................................................... 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.

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 

and collect 5 dry standard cubic meters of 

gas per test run. 

6. Any pollutant from a continuous, batch, or 

combination of continuous and batch process vent(s).

a. Select sampling port locations and the 

number of traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–1. 

b. Determine gas velocity and volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. 

c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis and 

correct concentrations the specified percent 

oxygen in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 using the same sampling site 

and time as HAP samples. 

d. Measure gas moisture content .................... Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. 

a Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART HHHHHHH OF PART 63—PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING SAMPLING OF STRIPPED RESIN AND

PROCESS WASTEWATER

For demonstrating . . . For the following emission points 

and types of processes . . . 

Collect samples according to the following schedule . . . 

Vinyl chloride . . . Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP . . . 

Each stripped resin stream 

1. Initial compliance ....................... a. Continuous ............................... Every 8 hours or for each grade, 

whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period.

Every 8 hours or for each grade, 

whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. 

b. Batch ........................................ 1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period.1 grab sample for each batch produced during a 24 hour period. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 

For demonstrating . . . For the following emission points 

and types of processes . . . 

Collect samples according to the following schedule . . . 

Vinyl chloride . . . Total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP . . . 

2. Continuous compliance ............. a. Continuous ............................... 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 monthly basis, 1 grab sample every 8 hours or for each 

grade, whichever is more frequent during a 24 hour period. 

b. Batch ........................................ On a daily basis, 1 grab sample 

for each batch produced 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 ....................... 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) phthalate (DEHP) ................... SVOC ................................................................. SW–846–8270D.a

123319 ................... Hydroquinone ..................................................... SVOC ................................................................. SW–846–8270D.a

108952 ................... Phenol ................................................................ SVOC ................................................................. SW–846–8270D.a

79345 ..................... 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ................................... VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

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 (Chloroethane) ............................ VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

100414 ................... Ethylbenzene ...................................................... VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

107062 ................... Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) ........... VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

75343 ..................... Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) ........ VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

74873 ..................... Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) ....................... VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

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 (1,1-Dichloroethylene) ........ VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

1330207 ................. Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) ........................ VOC .................................................................... SW–846–8260B.a

a Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6421 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES