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



[[Page 22847]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 74

April 17, 2012

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

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

[[Page 22848]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533b3c243221377d393c373a133623327d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4641594f5c4a0044414a476e4b5e4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

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
NO<INF>X</INF> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> sulfur dioxide
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TEQ toxic equivalent
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VACO vinyl acetate copolymer
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
WWW World Wide Web

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

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

[[Page 22849]]

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 
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 best-performing five sources for source categories 
or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) 
and (B)). This minimum level of stringency is called the MACT floor. 
For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the 
control level achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more 
stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When considering 
beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account 
costs, energy and non-air

[[Page 22850]]

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

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

    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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> A reconstructed affected source.
    As an example, if an existing PVC plant adds a new PVCPU, the new 
PVCPU and the associated emission control devices and wastewater 
treatment processes would be subject to the existing source NESHAP 
limits, unless it qualifies as a reconstructed source. A newly 
constructed PVCPU would be subject to the new source requirements in 
the final rules only if it was constructed at a Greenfield site or at a 
site that had not previously produced PVC prior to the date of proposal 
of this rule (May 20, 2011) or if it qualifies as a reconstructed 
source.

B. Subcategories

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

[[Page 22851]]

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

C. Emission Standards

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

[[Page 22852]]



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


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

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

[[Page 22853]]

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

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


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


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


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


[[Page 22854]]


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

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

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

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

[[Page 22855]]

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

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

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

D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and Reporting

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

[[Page 22856]]

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

E. Area Source Requirements

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

F. New and Revised Definitions

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

IV. Summary of the Final Rules

A. What is the affected source?

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

[[Page 22857]]

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

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

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

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

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

D. Are there subcategories for major sources?

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

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

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

[[Page 22858]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 22859]]

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


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

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

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

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

[[Page 22860]]

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

[[Page 22861]]

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

[[Page 22862]]

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

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

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

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

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

I. What are the requirements for area sources?

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

[[Page 22863]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 22864]]

J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

    The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 
reviews (e.g., risk assessment) of CAA section 112 standards, as well 
as for many other purposes, including compliance determinations, 
emission factor development and annual emission rate determinations. In 
conducting these reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source 
owners and operators to locate, collect and submit emissions test data 
in paper form because of varied locations for data storage and varied 
data storage methods. In recent years though, stack testing firms have 
typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making 
it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would 
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data 
accessibility.
    In the final rule, the EPA is including a step to increase the ease 
and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. 
Specifically, we are requiring owners and operators of PVC production 
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance 
test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was 
constructed to store performance test data for use in developing 
emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at 
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

[[Page 22865]]

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

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Reconstructed affected source.

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

B. Overlapping Rules

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

[[Page 22866]]

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

C. Pollutants Regulated

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

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

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

[[Page 22867]]

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

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

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

[[Page 22868]]

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

D. Subcategories

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

[[Page 22869]]

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

[[Page 22870]]

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

E. MACT Floor Calculation

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

[[Page 22871]]

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

[[Page 22872]]

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

[[Page 22873]]

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

[[Page 22874]]

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

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

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

[[Page 22875]]

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

[[Page 22876]]

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

[[Page 22877]]

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

[[Page 22878]]

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

[[Page 22879]]

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

[[Page 22880]]

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

F. Emission Source Requirements

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

[[Page 22881]]

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

[[Page 22882]]

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

[[Page 22883]]

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

[[Page 22884]]

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

[[Page 22885]]

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

G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and Reporting

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

[[Page 22886]]

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

H. Area Sources

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

[[Page 22887]]

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

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

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

    * * * 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

[[Page 22888]]

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

[[Page 22889]]

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

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


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

[[Page 22890]]

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

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

[[Page 22891]]

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

[[Page 22892]]

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

[[Page 22893]]

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

J. Cost and Emission Impacts

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

[[Page 22894]]

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

K. Economic Impacts

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

[[Page 22895]]

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

L. Affirmative Defense

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

[[Page 22896]]

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

M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses

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

VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rules

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

A. What are the air impacts?

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

[[Page 22897]]

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

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


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

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

[[Page 22898]]

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

B. What are the cost impacts?

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

[[Page 22899]]



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


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

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

[[Page 22900]]

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

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

Major Sources
    We anticipate major affected sources will need to apply additional 
controls to meet the final emission limits. The energy impacts 
associated with meeting the final emission limits would consist 
primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air 
pollution control devices. By our estimate, we anticipate that an 
additional 5,300 megawatt-hours per year would be required for the 
additional and improved control devices.
    We anticipate secondary air impacts from major sources adding 
controls to meet the standards. The combustion of fuel needed to 
generate additional electricity would yield slight increases in 
nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 
emissions. Since NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and 
electric generating units are covered by capped emissions trading 
programs, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for 
these pollutants for this rule from additional electricity demand. The 
analyses are documented in the memorandum, Revised Secondary Impacts 
for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 
Category, available in the docket.
Area Sources
    We do not anticipate the area affected sources will need to apply 
any additional controls with additional electricity or fuel 
requirements associated with meeting the final emission limits. 
Therefore, we have not estimated any additional secondary electricity 
generation of air impacts for area sources.

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

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[[Page 22901]]

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

[[Page 22902]]

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

[[Page 22903]]

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

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

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

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

    The EPA developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure 
that interested communities have access to this final rule, are aware 
of its content, and had an opportunity to comment during the comment 
period. The EPA also ensured that interested communities had an 
opportunity to comment during the comment period. During the comment 
period, the EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental justice 
newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs and 
the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web 
site (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.


[[Page 22904]]


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

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

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


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

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

Subpart DDDDDD--[Amended]

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


Sec.  63.11140  Am I subject to this subpart?

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

[[Page 22905]]

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

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


Sec.  63.11141  What are my compliance dates?

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

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


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

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

[[Page 22906]]

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

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


Sec.  63.11143  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

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

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


Sec.  63.11144  What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

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


Sec.  63.11145  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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

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

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

[[Page 22907]]

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


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


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

Subparts FFFFFFF and GGGGGGG--[Reserved]

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

What This Subpart Covers

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

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards

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

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Compliance Requirements

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

[[Page 22908]]

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

Notifications, Reports and Records

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

Definitions

63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63

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

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

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.11860  What is the purpose of this subpart?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Sec.  63.11875  When must I comply with this subpart?

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

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards


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

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

[[Page 22909]]

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

General Compliance Requirements


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

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page 22910]]

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


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

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

Testing and Compliance Requirements


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

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page 22911]]

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


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

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

[[Page 22912]]

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


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

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

[[Page 22913]]

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

[[Page 22914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.000

Where:

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


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

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

[[Page 22915]]

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


[[Page 22916]]


Where:

C<INF>TOC</INF> = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), 
dry basis, parts per million by volume.
C<INF>ji</INF> = Concentration of sample component j of the sample 
i, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
n = Number of components in the sample.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.

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


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

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

[[Page 22917]]

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

[[Page 22918]]

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

[[Page 22919]]

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


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

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

[[Page 22920]]

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


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

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

[[Page 22921]]

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

[[Page 22922]]

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


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

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

[[Page 22923]]

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

Where:

C<INF>c</INF> = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic 
HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected to 3-percent 
oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
C<INF>m</INF> = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic 
HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride, dry basis, parts per 
million by volume.
%O<INF>2d</INF> = Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percentage by 
volume.

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

Where:

C<INF>a</INF> = Corrected outlet concentration of HAP, dry basis, 
parts per million by volume (ppmv).
C<INF>m</INF> = Actual concentration of HAP measured at control 
device outlet, dry basis, ppmv.
Q<INF>a</INF> = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams vented 
to the control device, except supplemental gases.
Q<INF>s</INF> = total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases.


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

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

(Eq. 1)Where:

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

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

[[Page 22924]]

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

(Eq. 2)Where:

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

Where:

S<INF>i</INF> = Saturation factor for individual condensable 
compounds.
P<INF>i</INF> = 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.
V<INF>i</INF>\sat\ = Volumetric flow rate of individual condensable 
compounds at saturated vapor pressure.
K<INF>i</INF> = Mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable 
compounds in the emission stream.
K<INF>o</INF> = Mass transfer coefficient of reference compound 
(e.g., 0.83 cm/s for water).
M<INF>o</INF> = Molecular weight of reference compound (e.g., 18.02 
for water).
M<INF>i</INF> = Molecular weight of individual condensable compounds 
in the emission stream.
n = Number of condensable compounds in the emission stream.

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

[[Page 22925]]

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

 (Eq. 6)Where:

E = Mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated.
N<INF>avg</INF> = Average gas space molar volume during the heating 
process.
P<INF>T</INF> = Total pressure in the vessel.
P<INF>i,1</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds 
at initial temperature (T<INF>1</INF>).
P<INF>i,2</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds 
at final temperature (T<INF>2</INF>).
MW<INF>HAP</INF> = Average molecular weight of the HAP compounds 
calculated using Equation 13 of this section.
n<INF>i,1</INF> = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel 
headspace at initial temperature (T<INF>1</INF>).
n<INF>i,2</INF> = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel 
headspace at final temperature (T<INF>2</INF>).
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
ln = Natural logarithm.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.008

(Eq. 7)Where:

N<INF>avg</INF> = Average gas space molar volume during the heating 
process.
V = Volume of free space in vessel.
P<INF>T</INF> = Total pressure in the vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T<INF>1</INF> = Initial temperature of the vessel.
T<INF>2</INF> = Final temperature of the vessel.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.009

Where:

V = Volume of free space in vessel.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T<INF>1</INF> = Initial temperature in the vessel.
T<INF>2</INF> = Final temperature in the vessel.
P<INF>i,1</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds 
at T<INF>1</INF>.
P<INF>i,2</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds 
at T<INF>2</INF>.
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 Pa<INF>2</INF> = 
0 in the calculation of [Delta][eta] in Equation 10 of this section.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.010

Where:

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

[[Page 22926]]

P<INF>i</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual HAP determined at 
the exit temperature of the condenser or at the conditions of the 
dedicated receiver.
P<INF>j</INF> = 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.
MW<INF>HAP</INF> = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor 
exiting the dedicated receiver, as calculated using Equation 11 of 
this section with partial pressures determined at the exit 
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission 
stream.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.012

Where:

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

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

Where:

E = Emissions.
V = Free volume in vessel being depressurized.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
T = Temperature of the vessel, absolute.
P<INF>1</INF> = Initial pressure in the vessel.
P<INF>2</INF> = Final pressure in the vessel.
P<INF>j</INF> = Partial pressure of the individual condensable 
compounds (including HAP).
MW<INF>i</INF> = Molecular weight of the individual HAP compounds.
n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission 
stream.
i = Identifier for a HAP compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
ln = Natural logarithm.

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

[[Page 22927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.014

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
P<INF>T</INF> = Absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector 
outlet conditions, if there is no receiver.
P<INF>i</INF> = Partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver 
temperature or the ejector outlet conditions.
P<INF>j</INF> = 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.
MW<INF>nc</INF> = Molecular weight of noncondensable gas.
t = Time of vacuum operation.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP in the emission stream, 
with HAP partial pressures calculated at the temperature of the 
receiver or ejector outlet, as appropriate.

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

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.
B = Mass of dry solids.
PS<INF>1</INF> = HAP in material entering dryer, weight percent.
PS<INF>2</INF> = HAP in material exiting dryer, weight percent.

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

Where:

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

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


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

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

[[Page 22928]]

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


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

    You must operate a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride monitoring 
system for detection of major leaks and identification of the general 
area of the affected source where a leak is located. A vinyl chloride 
monitoring system means a device which obtains air samples from one or 
more points on a continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples 
with gas chromatography or, if you assume that all hydrocarbons 
measured are vinyl chloride, analyzes the samples with infrared 
spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or alternative 
method. You must operate the vinyl chloride monitoring system according 
to a program that you develop for your affected source. You must submit 
a description of the program to the Administrator within 45 days of 
your compliance date, unless a waiver of compliance is granted by the 
Administrator, or the program has been approved and the Administrator 
does not request a review of the program. Approval of a program will be 
granted by the Administrator provided the Administrator finds:
    (a) The location and number of points to be monitored and the 
frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are acceptable when 
they are compared with the number of pieces of equipment in vinyl 
chloride service and size and physical layout of the affected source.
    (b) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable when 
compared with the background concentrations of vinyl chloride in the 
areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring 
system. Measurements of background concentrations of vinyl chloride in 
the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring 
system are to be included with the description of the program. The 
definition of leak for a given plant may vary among the different areas 
within the plant and is also to change over time as background 
concentrations in the plant are reduced.
    (c) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken when a 
leak is detected.
    (d) It provides for an acceptable calibration and maintenance 
schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system and portable 
hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily 
span check must be conducted with a concentration of vinyl chloride 
equal to the concentration defined as a leak according to paragraph (b) 
of this section. The calibration must be done with either:
    (1) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases specified in 
sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of Method 106 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, 
and in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 106, or
    (2) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the appropriate 
concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition of the calibration 
gas cylinder standard must have been certified by the manufacturer. The 
manufacturer must have recommended a maximum shelf life for each 
cylinder so that the concentration does not change greater than <plus-
minus>5 percent from the certified value. The date of gas cylinder 
preparation, certified vinyl chloride concentration, and recommended 
maximum shelf life must have been affixed to the cylinder before 
shipment from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is 
used as the vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be 
directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as described 
in Sections 8.1 and 9.2 of Method 106. The requirements in Sections 
7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.2 of Method 106 for certification of cylinder 
standards and for establishment and verification of calibration 
standards are to be followed.


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

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

[[Page 22929]]

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

Where:

A<INF>T</INF> = 24-hour average concentration of resin type T, parts 
per million by weight (dry basis).
P<INF>Gi</INF> = Production of resin grade G<INF>i</INF>, pounds.
C<INF>Gi</INF> = 24-hour average concentration of vinyl chloride or 
total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in resin grade G<INF>i</INF>, 
ppmw.
Q<INF>T</INF> = Total production of resin type T over the 24-hour 
sampling period, pounds.

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

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


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

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

[[Page 22930]]

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page 22931]]

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


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

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

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

Notifications, Reports and Records


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

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

[[Page 22932]]

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

[[Page 22933]]

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

[[Page 22934]]

continuous operating parameter monitoring specified in this rule, as 
provided for in Sec.  63.11940(h), following the same procedure as 
specified in Sec.  63.8. The information specified in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section must be included.
    (i) A description of the proposed alternative system.
    (ii) Information justifying your request for an alternative method, 
such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, 
of the affected source using the required method.
    (5) Request for approval to monitor alternative parameters. Prior 
to your initial notification of compliance status, you may submit 
requests for approval to monitor a different parameter than those 
established in Sec.  63.11935(d), following the same procedure as 
specified for alternative monitoring methods in Sec.  63.8. The 
information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this 
section must be included in the request.
    (i) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the 
control technology or pollution prevention measure is operated in 
conformance with its design and achieves the specified emission limit 
and an explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s).
    (ii) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used 
to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the 
control device, the schedule for this demonstration, and a statement 
that you will establish an operating limit for the monitored 
parameter(s) as part of the notification of compliance status if 
required under this subpart, unless this information has already been 
submitted.
    (iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, and 
reporting, if monitoring and recording is not continuous. The rationale 
for the proposed monitoring, recording, and reporting system must be 
included.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) Pressure relief device deviation report. If any pressure relief 
device in HAP service has discharged to the atmosphere as specified in 
Sec.  63.11915(c), then you must submit to the Administrator within 10 
days of the discharge the following information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the discharge.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the discharge.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and total HAP 
emitted during the discharge and the method used for determining this 
quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges.
    (8) Commencing and ceasing operation of continuous emissions 
monitoring systems. Before starting or stopping the use of CEMS you 
must notify the Administrator as specified in Sec.  63.11935(b)(7).
    (9) Data submittal. (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance test (see Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you 
must submit the results of performance tests electronically to the 
EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) (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 Sec.  63.2), you must submit the 
relative accuracy test audit data electronically into the EPA's CDX by 
using the ERT, as mentioned in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section. 
Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject 
to this requirement to be submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX.
    (iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section must be 
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  
63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a 
report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic 
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator 
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs 
(c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.


Sec.  63.11990  What records must I keep?

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

[[Page 22935]]

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

[[Page 22936]]

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


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

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


Sec.  63.12000  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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

Definitions


Sec.  63.12005  What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

[[Page 22937]]

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

[[Page 22938]]

disperse vinyl chloride monomer in the water phase. Initiators used in 
the dispersion process are soluble in water. Resins produced using the 
dispersion process are referred to as latex or dispersion resins.
    Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of stored 
liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that contain liquid only 
as a result of the liquid clinging to the walls or bottoms, or resting 
in pools due to bottom irregularities, are considered completely empty.
    Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief 
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 
connector and instrumentation system in HAP service; and any control 
devices or systems used to comply with this subpart.
    Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a storage 
vessel, but not necessarily to capacity.
    First attempt at repair, for the purposes of this subpart, means to 
take action for the purpose of stopping or reducing leakage of organic 
material to the atmosphere, followed by monitoring as specified in 
Sec.  63.11930(f) to verify whether the leak is repaired, unless the 
owner or operator determines by other means that the leak is not 
repaired.
    Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is mounted 
(i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move 
with fluctuations in stored liquid level.
    Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is, 
or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be, present in a 
line.
    Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating 
in a vessel filled with water that is used to store gases from the PVC 
production process prior to being recovered or sent to a process vent 
control device. The bell rises and falls as low-pressure gases enter 
and leave the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal 
between the enclosed gas within the floating bell and the ambient air.
    Grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it as a 
unique resin, i.e., the most exact description of a type of resin with 
no further subdivision. Examples include low molecular weight 
suspension resins and general purpose suspension resins.
    Hard-piping means pipes or tubing that are manufactured and 
properly installed using good engineering judgment and an appropriate 
standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization 
if such a method exists or you may use an industry standard practice. 
Consensus-based standards organizations include, but are not limited 
to, American National Standards Institute (ANSI, 1819 L Street NW., 6th 
floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8020, 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., non-contact 
heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system 
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the 
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers 
that are serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from 
the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat exchange 
system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual 
process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). 
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation 
of a wastewater.
    Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from the exit 
of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat 
exchangers) to either the entrance of the cooling tower return line or 
prior to exposure to the atmosphere or mixing with non-cooling water 
streams, in, as an example, a once-through cooling system, whichever 
occurs first.
    In HAP service means that a process component either contains or 
contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or a gas 
that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP as determined according to the 
provisions of Sec.  63.180(d). For the purposes of this definition, the 
term ``organic HAP'' as used in Sec.  63.180(d) means HAP. The 
provisions of Sec.  63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a 
process component is not in HAP service.
    In vacuum service means that the process component is operating at 
an internal pressure that is at least 5 kilopascals (kPa) (0.7 pounds 
per square inch absolute) below ambient pressure.
    Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device with an enclosed 
fire box that is used for destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel 
may be used to heat waste gas to combustion temperatures. Any energy 
recovery section present is not physically formed into one manufactured 
or assembled unit with the combustion section; rather, the energy 
recovery section is a separate section following the combustion section 
and the two are joined by ducts or connections carrying flue gas. This 
energy recovery section limitation does not apply to an energy recovery 
section used solely to preheat the incoming vent stream or combustion 
air.
    Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining 
of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an individual drain 
system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance 
wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and 
during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities 
that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat 
exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components such 
as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, draining of 
low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual 
drain system, draining of portions of the PVCPU for repair and water 
used to wash out process components or equipment after the process 
components or equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere and 
has met the requirements of Sec.  63.11955.
    Maximum representative operating conditions means process operating 
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the 
control device. The most challenging condition for the control device 
may include, but is not limited to, the highest or lowest HAP mass 
loading rate to the control device, the highest or lowest HAP mass 
loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for 
scrubbing media, the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of 
constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.
    Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure 
exerted by the total HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at the 
temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the liquid 
storage or transfer temperature for liquids stored or transferred above 
or below the ambient temperature or at the local maximum monthly 
average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for 
liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature, as determined 
by any one of the following methods or references:
    (1) In accordance with methods described in API MPMS 19.2 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (2) As obtained from standard reference texts.
    (3) As determined by ASTM D2879-83 or ASTM D2879-96 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.

[[Page 22939]]

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

[[Page 22940]]

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

[[Page 22941]]

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

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


[[Page 22942]]


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


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


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

[[Page 22943]]

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

[[Page 22944]]

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


[[Page 22945]]


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

[[Page 22946]]

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


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


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

[[Page 22947]]

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


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


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

[[Page 22948]]

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


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

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>