# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-6421 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** April 17, 2012 - **Citation:** 77 FR 22848 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037; FRL-9636-2] RIN 2060-AN33 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production. The final rules establish emission standards that apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, for hazardous air pollutants from polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production located at major and area sources. The final rules include requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards, including monitoring provisions and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. DATES: The final rules are effective on April 17, 2012. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 17, 2012. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4607; Fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document. CAA Clean Air Act CDD/CDF chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system DCS distributed control system dscm dry standard cubic meter EDC ethylene dichloride ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technologies or management practices HMW high molecular weight HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP ICR information collection request LAER lowest achievable emission rate LDAR leak detection and repair LMW low molecular weight LOQ limit of quantitation MACT maximum achievable control technology MDL method detection levels MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter NO X 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 2 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 VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rule A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy impacts? D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The final rules establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for polyvinyl chloride and copolymer (PVC) production. The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these standards include the following: Category NAICS a Code Examples of potentially regulated entities Polyvinyl chloride resins manufacturing 325211 Facilities that polymerize vinyl chloride monomer to produce polyvinyl chloride and/or copolymers products. a North American Industry Classification System. 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 quality health and environmental impacts when doing so. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate standards or requirements for area sources “which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” Additional information on generally available control technology (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as: * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the analogous source category to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source categories at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to “review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.” B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA's Response On July 10, 2002, the EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and existing PVC production facilities that are located at major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart J (67 FR 45886, July 10, 2002) (referred to as the “part 63 NESHAP”). In that rulemaking, the EPA determined that compliance with the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart F) (referred to as the “part 61 NESHAP”) reflected the application of MACT; thus, satisfying CAA section 112(d), with the exception of adding requirements for equipment leaks at new sources. In the part 63 NESHAP, the EPA regulated vinyl chloride emissions as a surrogate for all HAP emitted from PVC production. For equipment leaks, the part 63 NESHAP required that new sources comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards. In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (DC Cir. 2004), the petitioners argued that the EPA failed to set emission standards for all HAP emitted by PVC plants. The EPA had set emission standards for vinyl chloride as a surrogate for the remaining HAP because it was the predominant HAP used and emitted at PVC plants. The Court ruled that the EPA did not adequately explain the basis for its decision to use vinyl chloride as a surrogate for other HAP. The Court “vacated and remanded [the rule in its entirety] to the agency for it to reconsider or properly explain its methodology for regulating [HAP] emitted in PVC production other than vinyl chloride by use of a surrogate.” 370 F.3d at 1243. This rule promulgates NESHAP for PVC production at major sources in response to the remand and in accordance with section 112 of the CAA. On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2930), the EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and existing PVC production area sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD. Subpart DDDDDD was based on GACT and required area sources to meet the requirements in the existing part 61 NESHAP. The part 61 NESHAP requirements address only vinyl chloride emissions. In this rulemaking, we are fulfilling our obligation under CAA section 112(d)(6) to review and revise, as necessary, the PVC production area source standards. We coordinated our CAA 112(d)(6) review of the area source standards with the development of major source MACT standards in response to the Court remand. III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal The EPA received over 39 public comment letters on the proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted two public hearings to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. After consideration of public comments and new data received, the EPA is making several changes to the standards. Following are the major changes to the standards since the proposal. The rationale for these and other significant changes can be found in section V of this preamble or in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production: Summary of Public Comments and Responses, in the PVC docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037). A. Applicability The definition of affected source was changed to clarify the requirements for existing and new affected sources. In the proposed rule, an affected source was defined as each individual PVC production process unit (PVCPU) and a new affected source was a PVCPU for which construction commenced on or after May 20, 2011, at a major or area source. A PVCPU was defined to include all equipment connected by shared piping, including equipment typically shared by multiple PVCPU, such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment systems. In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater, and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source is defined as follows: • All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed at a Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to the rule proposal but has undergone process changes to start producing PVC. • A reconstructed affected source. As an example, if an existing PVC plant adds a new PVCPU, the new PVCPU and the associated emission control devices and wastewater treatment processes would be subject to the existing source NESHAP limits, unless it qualifies as a reconstructed source. A newly constructed PVCPU would be subject to the new source requirements in the final rules only if it was constructed at a Greenfield site or at a site that had not previously produced PVC prior to the date of proposal of this rule (May 20, 2011) or if it qualifies as a reconstructed source. B. Subcategories At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. In the final rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only and PVC-combined. PVC-only process vents comprise process vent streams that 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. Table 1—Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Process Vents at Existing Major Sources Pollutant Emission limits a Proposed Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined Vinyl chloride 0.32 ppmv 6.0 ppmv 1.1 ppmv. Hydrogen chloride 150 ppmv 78 ppmv 380 ppmv. Total hydrocarbons (THC) 2.0 ppmv as propane c 9.7 ppmv as propane 4.2 ppmv as propane. Total organic 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 (O 2 ). ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O 2 . 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 Pollutant Emission limits a Proposed Final: PVC-only Final: PVC-combined Vinyl chloride 3.2 ppbv 0.56 ppmv 0.56 ppmv. Hydrogen chloride 0.17 ppmv 0.17 ppmv 1.4 ppmv. Total hydrocarbons (THC) 2.0 ppmv as propane c 7.0 ppmv as propane 2.3 ppmv as propane. Total organic 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 O 2 . ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O 2 . 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 explained further in section V of this preamble. For the final rule, we excluded information from several facilities from the MACT floor analysis due to the use of inconsistent test methods, inaccurate or questionable method detection levels (MDL), or lack of documentation on the sampling and analysis results. The changes made to the MACT floor calculations are discussed in section V.E.2 of this preamble. Tables 3 through 7 of this preamble present the proposed and final stripped resin emission limits for bulk resin, dispersion resin, suspension resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin, respectively, at existing and new sources. Table 3—Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Bulk Resin at Existing and New Major Sources Source Pollutant Bulk resin Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a Final emission limits (ppmw) a Existing Vinyl Chloride 7.1 7.1 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 170 170 New Vinyl Chloride 7.1 7.1 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 170 170 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 Source Pollutant Dispersion resin Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a Final emission limits (ppmw) a Existing Vinyl Chloride 55 1300 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 110 240 New Vinyl Chloride 41 480 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 58 66 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 Source Pollutant Suspension resin Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a b Final emission limits (ppmw) a b Existing Vinyl Chloride 0.48 37 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 76 670 New Vinyl Chloride 0.20 7.3 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 42 15 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 Source Pollutant Suspension blending resin Proposed Emission limits (ppmw) a b Final emission limits (ppmw) a b Existing Vinyl Chloride 0.48 140 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 76 500 New Vinyl Chloride 0.20 140 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 42 500 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. Table 7—Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for Copolymer Stripped Resin at Existing and New Major Sources Source Pollutant Copolymer resin Proposed emission limits (ppmw) a b Final emission limits (ppmw) a b Existing Vinyl Chloride 0.48 790 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 76 1,900 New Vinyl Chloride 0.20 790 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP 42 1,900 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 Source Pollutant Proposed emission limits (ppmw) Final emission limits (ppmw) Existing Vinyl Chloride Less than 10 ppmw for streams that do not require treatment, or 0.11 ppmw for streams that require treatment a 6.8 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP Less than 1,000 ppmw or less than 10 liters per minute annual average flow rate for streams that do not require treatment, or the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for streams that require treatment b 110 New Vinyl Chloride Less than 10 ppmw for streams that do not require treatment, or 0.0060 ppmw for streams that require treatment a 0.28 Total Non-Vinyl Chloride Organic HAP Less than 1,000 ppmw or less than 10 liters per minute annual average flow rate for streams that do not require treatment, or the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for streams that require treatment b 0.018 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 either total strippable VOC or for vinyl chloride. Total strippable VOC monitoring must be done using either the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA Method 624, and vinyl chloride monitoring must be done using EPA Method 107, as it is the established method for the PVC industry to analyze vinyl chloride concentrations in water samples. The leak action levels for new and existing sources are the same in the final rule. Furthermore, the leak action levels and delay of repair action levels are the same whether facilities monitor for strippable VOC or for vinyl chloride in the cooling water and are 50 ppbw and 500 ppbw, respectively. For total strippable VOC monitoring using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method, the leak action level is 3.9 ppmv in the stripping gas and the delay of repair action level is 39 ppmv. Table 9 of this preamble presents the proposed and final standards for heat exchange systems at existing and new sources. Table 9—Comparison of Proposed and Final Standards for Heat Exchange Systems at Existing and New Sources Source Pollutant Proposed leak action level Proposed monitoring frequency Final leak action level Final monitoring frequency Existing Total strippable VOC 38 ppbw in cooling water or 2.9 ppmv in stripping gas Monthly 50 ppbw in cooling water or 3.9 ppmv in stripping gas Monthly. Vinyl chloride NA NA 50 ppbw in cooling water Monthly. New Total strippable VOC 30 ppbw in cooling water or 2.3 ppmv in stripping gas Every 12 hours 50 ppbw in cooling water or 3.9 ppmv in stripping gas Monthly. Vinyl chloride NA NA 50 ppbw in cooling water Monthly. NA—not applicable. We have clarified in the final rule that heat exchange systems that are in HAP service and that have a maximum cooling water flow rate of greater than 10 gallons per minute are required to monitor for leaks. 6. Other Emission Sources In addition to proposing requirements for reactor opening losses in the proposed rule, we solicited comment and additional information on emissions, controls and costs of controls for gasholders. Based on our review of comments, and analysis of methods to control emissions from gasholders, the final rule requires that emissions from gasholder vents be routed back into the process or vented through a closed vent system to a control device. Affected sources must also install floating objects on gasholder water seals to reduce emissions of vinyl chloride and other HAP from those seals. D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and Reporting The final rule contains several changes to the compliance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 1. Process Vents At proposal, affected sources were required to conduct performance tests for process vents on an annual basis. In the final rule, performance tests must be conducted once every 5 years since the continuous parametric monitoring requirements ensure compliance on a continuous basis. In the final rule, we have established two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only and PVC combined. As at proposal, the final rule also requires that all gaseous streams from process vents must be routed into a closed vent system and sent to a control device in order to meet the PVC-only or 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 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 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 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 Subcategory Pollutant Emission limitations a Existing sources New sources PVC-only process vents Vinyl chloride 6.0 ppmv 0.56 ppmv. Hydrogen chloride 78 ppmv 0.17 ppmv. Total hydrocarbons (THC) b 9.7 ppmv as propane 7.0 ppmv as propane. Total organic 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 (THC) b 4.2 ppmv as propane 2.3 ppmv as propane. 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 (O 2 ). ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O 2 . ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O 2 . 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 Pollutant Emission limits (ppmw) Homopolymer resins Bulk resin Dispersion resin Suspension resin Suspension blending resin Copolymer resin Vinyl chloride 7.1 1,300 37 140 790 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 170 240 670 500 1,900 Table 12—Limits for Stripped Resins at New Major Sources Pollutant Emission limits (ppmw) Homopolymer resins Bulk resin Dispersion resin Suspension resin Suspension blending resin Copolymer resin Vinyl chloride 7.1 480 7.3 140 790 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 170 66 15 500 1,900 7. Wastewater In 40 CFR 63.11965 of the final rule, we are requiring process wastewater streams at existing sources to meet emission limits of 6.8 ppmw for vinyl chloride and 110 ppmw for total 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 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. 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 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. 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 Subcategory Pollutant Emission limits a Existing sources New sources PVC-only process vents Vinyl chloride 5.3 ppmv 5.3 ppmv. Total hydrocarbons (THC) b 46 ppmv as propane 46 ppmv as propane. Total organic 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 (THC) b 2.3 ppmv as propane 2.3 ppmv as propane. Total organic HAP 29 ppmv 29 ppmv. Dioxin/Furans (TEQ) 0.076 ng/dscm 0.076 ng/dscm. a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O 2 ). ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O 2 . 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 Subcategory Pollutant Emission limits (ppmw) Existing sources New sources Bulk resin Vinyl chloride 7.1 7.1 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 170 170 Suspension Vinyl chloride 36 36 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 36 36 Dispersion Vinyl chloride 1,500 1,500 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 320 320 Suspension blending Vinyl chloride 140 140 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 500 500 Copolymer Vinyl chloride 790 790 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 1,900 1,900 7. Wastewater In the final rule, we are requiring that process wastewater streams at existing and new PVC area sources reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, measured immediately as the process wastewater stream leaves a process component and before mixing with any other wastewater stream, to no more than the levels specified in Table 15 of this preamble. We are also requiring that wastewater streams from existing and new PVC area sources meet the same requirements for demonstrating compliance as major sources including maintenance wastewater work practices, as discussed in section IV.F.5 of this preamble. Table 15—Limits for Process Wastewater at New and Existing Area Sources Pollutant Emission limits (ppmw) Vinyl chloride 2.1 Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 0.018 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 could be interpreted to mean that a change to any existing PVCPU such that it becomes subject to new source requirements or the addition of a new PVCPU could require existing affected sources also to comply with the more stringent new source standards. For example, if the facility chose to comply with the emission limits for the new PVCPU unit using an existing control device that also controlled emissions from other existing PVCPU, then all the PVCPU routing to that control device would have to meet the new source emissions limit because there would be no way to differentiate the streams at the control device. Because it might not be technically possible for existing PVCPU to meet the new source requirements, the alternative would be to construct dedicated controls or supporting process equipment for new sources. The same situation would apply to other shared equipment, such as heat exchangers and wastewater treatment. We did not intend such a result when we proposed the definitions of affected source and new source in 40 CFR 63.11870. In light of the comments received, we are modifying the affected source definition to avoid the unintended results identified by the commenters with regard to the requirements for new sources. In the final rule, the existing affected source is the facility-wide collection of all PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC. A new affected source is any one of the following situations: • All PVCPU, storage vessels, surge control vessels, heat exchange systems, wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with producing PVC and are constructed at a Greenfield facility after May 20, 2011; or that are located at an existing facility that did not previously produce PVC prior to the rule proposal but has undergone process changes to start producing PVC. • Reconstructed affected source. Notwithstanding whether other approaches have been taken in other rules, the PVC NESHAP rule applies to a narrower selection of processes than HON or the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON), and we concluded that the affected source and new source definitions in the final rule are reasonable for the PVC industry. These edits clarify the requirements for new and existing sources and any further changes, such as defining threshold limits, are not necessary. B. Overlapping Rules Comment: Commenters expressed concern about overlapping requirements between the PVC MACT and other MACT that may be applicable to PVC and EDC/VCM facilities. One commenter requested that promulgation of the PVC MACT be delayed until a consolidated rule can be issued that also addresses EDC/VCM manufacturing facilities because the application of two separate rules is confusing to the regulated community. Another commenter proposed that the EPA expressly state that PVC vent streams and the centralized thermal oxidizers and ancillary equipment in which they are controlled with EDC/VCM vent streams not be subject to the requirements of the PVC MACT as long as they are controlled by the HON or other MACT standards because the commenter asserts that the EPA has made similar accommodations to address overlapping and conflicting requirements in previous MACT rules. Other commenters requested that the EPA provide overlap provisions for facilities that are already subject to other MACT standards. The commenters stated that affected sources currently subject to other part 63 NESHAP should have the option to choose one compliance option for the entire source rather than trying to demonstrate compliance with two separate requirements for the same equipment. One commenter pointed out that the proposed rule could cause regulatory inconsistencies because, for a PVCPU utilizing a control device system already regulated under another part 63 MACT (e.g., HON), that control device would have to meet two different standards (i.e., HON MACT and PVC MACT). One commenter proposed that the EPA should provide an option in the final rule that would allow the owner/operator to continue to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the MON MACT in lieu of the PVC MACT rule if greater than 50 percent of the heat input or the organic HAP vent flow to a “shared” emission control device are from facilities that are subject to the MON MACT. Response: In response to several of the comments, the final rule contains two subcategories for process vents: PVC-only process vents and PVC-combined process vents. Although this rulemaking is not consolidated with a rule for EDC/VCM production in the manner suggested by the commenter, the PVC-combined process vents subcategory addresses the concerns expressed. The process vent standards in the final rule for combined streams, e.g., from PVC and EDC/VCM, are based on and are consistent with emission testing conducted by the PVC and EDC/VCM industries in response to our CAA section 114 requests of PVC, VCM and EDC facilities. Our decision to set limits for the two process vent subcategories is further discussed in section V.D of this preamble. If a PVCPU uses a control device already subject to another Part 63 MACT rule such as the HON, then the facility may meet both sets of standards as applicable to the emission point or may choose to separate the two emission streams and route them to separate control devices, each complying with applicable requirements in the respective MACT standard. For the PVC process vent, the applicable standard may change from PVC-combined to PVC-only if the result is a process vent that qualifies as PVC-only. We disagree with the commenters that requested the final rule should clearly state the governing rule when regulations overlap. If an emission point is subject to both the PVC NESHAP and other NESHAP because emissions from two source categories are vented to the same control device, both standards apply. Multiple standards applicable to one emission point for the same pollutant are not necessarily “conflicting” or “inconsistent.” In some standards, the EPA has allowed compliance with another overlapping standard where that other overlapping standard was determined to be at least as stringent. However for this rule, it would not be appropriate to state that sources automatically or optionally may comply with another NESHAP in lieu of the PVC NESHAP because the requirements of the other NESHAP may be less stringent than the PVC NESHAP, including its MACT floor-based standards. If the EPA were to allow sources to meet the requirements from overlapping, but potentially less stringent rules in lieu of the PVC standards, there is the possibility that PVC facilities would not meet the MACT floor based standards in this rule. Although we recognize that facilities may be subject to different NESHAP regulations, sources are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all applicable regulations. Many NESHAP regulations provide a wide variety of compliance options, and, as such, it would be a difficult task to identify in advance which is the most stringent requirement in each case. We also disagree with allowing PVC sources to comply with other regulations, such as the MON, instead of complying with the PVC MACT, if 50 percent of the heat input or vent flow to a control device is 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 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-6421. Public record. Not legal advice.