***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

6560-50-P

EO12866_PVC Production 2060-AN33 Final_20120206

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037; FRL- ]

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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 511

rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

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 website. 

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

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: 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 511

(919) 541-4607; Fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address: 

howard.jodi@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAA Clean Air Act 

. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document.

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

dscm dry standard cubic meter

EDC ethylene dichloride

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

ft3 cubic feet

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

K kurtosis

LAER lowest achievable emission rate

lbs/yr pounds per year 

LDAR leak detection and repair

l/min liters per minute

LMW low molecular weight

LOQ limit of quantitation

m3 cubic meters

MACT maximum achievable control technology

MON miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing NESHAP

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants

ng nanograms
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 511

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OHAP organic hazardous air pollutants

OP Office of Policy

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

PTE potential to emit

PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers

PVCPU PVC production process unit

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDL representative method detection limit

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIN Regulatory Information Number

RL reporting limit

S skewness

SEK standard error of kurtosis 

SES standard error of skewness

Strategy Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TEF toxic equivalency factor 

TEQ toxic equivalent

THC total hydrocarbon

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

TNMHC total non-methane hydrocarbon 

TOHAP total organic hazardous air pollutants

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit

VACO vinyl acetate copolymer

VCM vinyl chloride monomer

VOC volatile organic compound

WWW World Wide Web 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 511

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The EPA is promulgating final rules that establish air 

emission limits and work practice standards for polyvinyl 

chloride and copolymers (PVC) production facilities at both 

major and area sources. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

requires EPA to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP), also 

known as air toxics, from large industrial facilities. Section 

112 generally provides for EPA to set maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards for major sources and generally 

available control technology (GACT) standards for area sources.

A major source facility is one that emits or has the potential 

to emit 10 or more tons per year (tpy) of any single air toxic, 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of air toxics. An area 

source facility is one that emits less than 10 tpy of any single 

air toxic, and less than 25 tpy of any combination of air 

toxics. A PVC production facility can be a major or area source 

of air toxics and includes the manufacture of PVC resins that 

are used at other manufacturing facilities to make any of a 

large number of commercial and industrial products (e.g., latex 

paints, coatings, adhesives, clear plastics, rigid plastics, and 

flooring). 

Purpose of this Regulatory Action

Comment [A1]: As indicated in a 

previous call, this section is not 

required for this rule; if the 

section remains, please consider 

the suggested edits below.

Comment [A2]: Please stick to the 

statutory phrase, “hazardous air 

pollutant,” rather substituting 

“air toxic.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 511

The EPA is setting MACT emission limits and work practice 

standards for PVC major sources and GACT emissions limits and 

work practice standards for PVC area sources. The rules also 

require testing, parametric monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting to ensure compliance with the emission standards.

The final rules replace the previous MACT standards rule 

for PVC major sources that EPA issued in July 2002. That rule 

was vacated by a 2004 decision of the District of Columbia 

Circuit Court of Appeals. The final rules also amend the 

existing air GACT standards rule for PVC area sources that EPA 

issued in 2007. In addition, the final rules supercede the 

provisions of the Part 61 NESHAP issued by EPA in 1976, as 

applicable to PVC facilities at major and area sources.

In general, the final rules require major and area source 

facilities that produce PVC to comply with EPA's technologybased MACT and GACT standards, thereby reducing harmful toxic

air emissions, improving air quality, and contributing to the 

protection of public health in communities where these 

facilities are located. Emission sources addressed in the rules

include PVC process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks, 

wastewater, heat exchange systems, and storage vessels. PVC 

production does not include chemical manufacturing process units 

Summary of Major Provisions
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 511

that produce vinyl chloride monomer, or other raw materials used 

in the PVC polymerization process. 

The final rules include air emission limits and work 

practice standards that regulate and control all HAP emitted at 

PVC major sources. For process vents at PVC major sources, we 

regulate all HAP emitted with standards for vinyl chloride, 

chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans (CDD/CDF), total 

hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP, and

hydrochloric acid (HCl) as a surrogate for all acid gas HAP (HCl 

and chlorine). For process vents at PVC area sources, we set 

standards for vinyl chloride, CDD/CDF, and THC. For stripped 

resin and process wastewater at PVC major and area sources, we 

regulate all HAP emitted with standards for vinyl chloride and 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. 

For equipment leaks and heat exchange systems, we establish 

leak detection and repair requirements based on volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). For heat exchangers, the standards are aimed at 

controlling leaks of HAP into the cooling water that are later 

emitted downstream. In the case of equipment leaks the standards 

are aimed at controlling leaks of HAP from equipment components 

(e.g., valves) using a hand-held organic vapor analyzer. Once 

leaks are detected, the standards require prompt repair.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 511

For storage vessels, we establish equipment specifications 

and work practices to control emissions of all HAP. We also 

require work practices to control HAP emissions from gasholder 

water seals, by requiring the installation and maintenance of 

floating objects. HAP emissions from maintenance wastewater, are 

controlled through work practices that require management of 

wastewater generated from the emptying and purging of equipment 

in the process. We are also requiring that emissions from the 

opening of reactors and other process components be minimized by 

reducing the volume of vinyl chloride prior to opening. 

Controlling vinyl chloride emissions will also control all other 

HAP.

Our review of emissions and sampling data that were 

received from the PVC CAA section 114 testing and the additional 

data received after the proposal have resulted in final emission 

limits that are generally much more stringent than those in the 

previous rules applicable to PVC production sources. The 

compliance dates for the major and area source rules are three

years from promulgation of the final rules for existing sources 

and upon start-up for new sources.

The final rules affect 15 major source and two area source

PVC production facilities owned by eight companies. None of 

Costs and Benefits
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 511

these companies are small businesses. For major sources, EPA 

estimates an overall total capital investment of $18 million to 

meet the rule requirements, with associated annual costs of $4 

million per year. For area sources, EPA estimates an overall 

total capital investment of $486,000 to meet the rule 

requirements, with associated annual costs of $167,000 per year.

The annual actual emission reductions of the final major 

source rule are estimated to be 238 tons of total air toxics.

The annual actual and allowable emission reductions of the final 

area source rule are 24 tons of total air toxics. Exposure to 

toxic air pollutants can cause respiratory problems and other 

serious health issues, and can increase the risk of developing 

cancer. In particular, children are known to be more sensitive 

to the cancer risks posed by inhaling vinyl chloride, one of the 

known carcinogens emitted by this source category.

Organization of This Document

I. General Information

. The following outline is

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

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

Comment [A3]: Again, please use HAP, 

rather than air toxics.

Comment [A4]: Please remove, as not 

needed for this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 511

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 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

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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 511

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

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:

A. Does this action apply to me?

Category

NAICSa

Code

Examples of Potentially 

Regulated Entities

Polyvinyl chloride 

resins manufacturing

325211 Facilities that polymerize vinyl

chloride monomer to produce 

polyvinyl chloride and/or 

copolymers products.

a North American Industry Classification System.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 511

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.

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 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 511

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. 

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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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, 

C. Judicial Review
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 511

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

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.

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

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 511

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 GACT is 

found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report 

Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 511

. . . 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 511

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.” 

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.

B. 2004 Vacatur and EPA’s Response

In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 

(D.C. Cir. 2004), the petitioners argued that the EPA failed to 

set emission standards for all HAP emitted by PVC plants. The
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 511

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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 511

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).

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 PVCPUs, such as heat exchangers and 

wastewater treatment systems. 

A. Applicability

In the final rule, the existing affected source is the 

facility-wide collection of all PVCPUs, storage vessels, surge 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 511

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 PVCPUs, 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 511

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 cocontrolled 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 511

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 511

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.

C. Emission Standards

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 CDD/CDF) and HCl. 

We did not identify in the data any inorganic HAP, metal HAP, or 

any acid gases other than HCl and chlorine. In setting limits 

for all HAP emitted at PVC major sources, we established THC 

limits as a surrogate for organic HAP from process vents, along 

with limits for HCl as a surrogate for all acid gas HAP, vinyl 

chloride, and CDD/CDF. Although vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 511

organic HAP, we established separate limits for these 

pollutants. Vinyl chloride is the most prevalent HAP in the PVC 

source category, is an urban HAP, and 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. For heat 

exchange systems, we are setting a total strippable VOC leak 

action level and an alternative vinyl chloride leak action level

because if either of these pollutants is detected in the cooling 

Comment [A5]: Rather than saying 

prevalent, which isn’t quite right 

in this context, suggest using the 

percentage of total HAP from this 

category that is typically VC. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 511

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 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.)

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.

1. Process vents

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 Limitsa
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 511

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

9.7 ppmv as 

propane c

4.2 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic HAP 12 ppmv b 56 ppmv 9.8 ppmv

Dioxin/furans (TEQ) 0.023 ng/dscm 0.038 ng/dscm 0.051 ng/dscm a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen (O2).

ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. b Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. c Proposed THC compliance limit.

Table 2. Comparison of Proposed and Final Emission Limits for 

Process Vents at New Major Sources

Pollutant

Emission Limits

Proposed

a

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

7.0 ppmv as 

propane c

2.3 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic HAP 0.22 ppmv b 5.5 ppmv 5.5 ppmv

Dioxin/furans (TEQ) 0.0087 ng/dscm 0.038 ng/dscm 0.034 ng/dscm a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O2. 

ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. b Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC. c Proposed THC compliance limit.

2. Equipment leaks

In the proposed rule, we required reciprocating pumps, 

reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators to be 

equipped with double seals or the equivalent. In the final rule, 

we are also allowing affected sources to comply with the 

requirements for reciprocating pumps, reciprocating and rotating 

compressors and agitators by complying with the requirements for 

40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. If double mechanical seals, or the 

equivalent, are not used, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU requires 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 511

pumps to be monitored monthly at a leak definition of 1,000 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.

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.

3. Stripped Resin

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 511

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, variability was more appropriately calculated for 

the final stripped resin vinyl chloride limits by using a

percentile instead of a UPL calculation. We evaluated the data 

using both the 99th percentile and the 99.9th percentile and 

determined that the 99.9th percentile (and not the 99th

percentile) more accurately accounts for the variability in the 

data set.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 511

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)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a

Existing

a

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.

NA–not applicable.

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)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a

Existing

a

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.

NA–not applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 511

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)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a,b

Existing

a,b

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

b At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

At proposal, suspension resin was included in the “all other resins” 

subcategory.

NA–not applicable.

Table 6. Emission Limits for Suspension Blending Stripped Resin

at Existing and New Major Sources

Source Pollutant

Suspension Blending Resin 

Proposed

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a,b

Existing

a,b

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

b At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

At proposal, suspension blending resin was included in the “all other 

resins” subcategory.

NA–not applicable.

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)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a,b

Existing

a,b

Vinyl Chloride 0.48 790
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 511

Source Pollutant

Copolymer Resin 

Proposed

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw)

Final

Emission 

Limits 

(ppmw) a,b

Total Non-Vinyl 

Chloride Organic HAP

a,b

76 1,900

New

Vinyl Chloride 0.20 790

Total Non-Vinyl 

Chloride Organic HAP 42 1,900

a

b At proposal, the total organic HAP limit included vinyl chloride. The final

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit excludes vinyl chloride.

At proposal, copolymer resins were included in the “all other resins” 

subcategory.

NA–not applicable.

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 (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 

4. Wastewater
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 511

wastewater using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described 

above, but the limits were calculated based on one 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 6.8
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 511

ppmw for streams that require 

treatmenta

Total NonVinyl 

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 

treatmentb

110

New

Vinyl 

Chloride

Less than 10 ppmw for streams that 

do not require treatment, or 

0.0060 ppmw for streams that 

require treatmenta

0.28

Total NonVinyl 

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 

treatmentb

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.

We proposed that affected sources would have the option of 

using the Modified El Paso Method or Method 8021B to monitor for 

leaks of volatile organic compounds (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 

5. Heat Exchange Systems
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 511

(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 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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 511

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.

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 

6. Other Emission Sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 511

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.

The final rule contains several changes to the compliance, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

D. Initial and Continuous Compliance, and Recordkeeping and 

Reporting

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.

1. Process Vents

In the final rule, we have established two subcategories 

for process vents: PVC-only and PVC combined. As at proposal, 

the final rule also requires that all gaseous streams from 

process vents must be routed into a closed vent system and sent 

to a control device in order to meet the PVC-only or PVCcombined emission limits. We are also requiring that each 

process vent stream must be characterized by developing an 

emission profile. This is to ensure that process vent streams 

are serving a valid process purpose and are not being diluted 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 511

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 hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS. The requirements to 

install and operate CDD/CDF CEMS and HCl CEMS have been removed 

as requirements since the 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 511

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.

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 ppmw. Instead, 

affected sources must initially test all untreated process 

3. Wastewater
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 511

wastewater streams and meet the vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 511

We proposed that affected sources would have the option of 

using the Modified El Paso Method or 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 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.

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.

5. Other Emission Sources

E. Area Source Requirements 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 511

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.

We have determined emission limits based on the control 

level that area sources are currently meeting to be GACT for 

existing and new area sources for PVC-only process vents, PVCcombined process vents, bulk resin, suspension resin, and 

process and maintenance wastewater. For other resin 

subcategories (i.e., dispersion, suspension blending, and 

copolymer), no existing area source produces these resins. For 

the dispersion subcategory, we determined GACT based on the 

least-controlled major source control level at existing major 

sources in that subcategory. GACT for the suspension blending 

and copolymer subcategories is based on the existing major 

source control levels for the single facility in each 

, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 511

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.

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, process vent,

solution process, surge control vessel, treatment process, type 

of resin and wastewater.

F. New and Revised Definitions

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, PVCcombined process vent, PVC-only process vent, suspension 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 511

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

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 polyvinyl chloride 

and copolymers. 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 

A. What is the affected source?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 511

source upon initial startup of the reconstructed source, or by

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], 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, pressure relief devices, 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.

Existing major affected sources are required to comply with 

40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH and existing area affected 

B. When must I comply with the major and area source standards?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 511

sources are required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

DDDDDD no later than [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New 

major and area affected sources are required to comply on 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], or upon startup, whichever is later.

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 

subpart HHHHHHH, the requirements of the part 61 NESHAP will no 

longer apply.

C. What is the relationship between this final rule for major 

sources and the 40 CFR part 61, subpart F standards?

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 (

D. Are there subcategories for major sources?

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.

The final rule contains five subcategories for limits on 

the amount of HAP remaining in resin following polymerization 

, PVC-combined process vents). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 511

and stripping (i.e.

See Section V.D of this preamble for more discussion on

subcategories.

, 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.

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.

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

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 

1. Storage Vessels and Handling Operations
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 511

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. 

In 40 CFR 63.11915 of the final rule, we are requiring that

existing and new affected sources comply with the leak detection 

and repair (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 

2. Equipment Leaks
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 511

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 pressure relief 

device (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.

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 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 

3. Heat Exchange Systems
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 511

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.

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.

4. Process 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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 511

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 Limitationsa

Existing Sources New Sources

PVC-only process 

vents

Vinyl chloride 6.0 ppmv 0.56 ppmv

Hydrogen chloride 78 ppmv 0.17 ppmv

Total 

hydrocarbons 

(THC)b

9.7 ppmv as 

propane

7.0 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic 

HAPb 56 ppmv 5.5 ppmv

Dioxin/Furans 

(TEQ) 0.038 ng/dscm 0.038 ng/dscm

PVC-combined 

process vents

Vinyl chloride 1.1 ppmv 0.56 ppmv

Hydrogen chloride 380 ppmv 1.4 ppmv

Total 

hydrocarbons 

(THC)b

4.2 ppmv as 

propane

2.3 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic 

HAPb 9.8 ppmv 5.5 ppmv ppmv

Dioxin/Furans 

(TEQ) 0.051 ng/dscm 0.034 ng/dscm

a ppbv = parts per billion by volume dry at 3-percent O2.

 ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O2.

 ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2.

b Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC. 

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 

5. Other Emission Sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 511

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 postpolymerization. We are requiring emissions from opening of 

process components for any reason be minimized by reducing the 

volume of vinyl chloride to an amount that occupies a volume of 

no more than 2.0 percent of the component's containment volume 

or 25 gallons, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and 

pressure. Any vinyl chloride emissions resulting from opening 

equipment must be ducted through a closed vent system to a 

control device meeting the process vent limits of the final 

rule. The outlet of the control device must meet the emission 

limitations for process vents discussed in Section IV.E.4 of 

this preamble.

In 40 CFR 63.11955 of the final rule, we are requiring that

emissions from gasholders must either be routed back into the 

process or be vented to a closed vent system and control device 

from which the exhaust gases do not exceed the process vent 

limits. To minimize fugitive emissions from gasholder water 

seals, we are also requiring the use of floating objects on the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 511

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.

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.

6. Stripped Resin

Table 11. Limits for Stripped Resins at Existing Major Sources

Pollutant

Emission Limits (ppmw)

Homopolymer Resins

Copolymer 

Bulk Resin Resin Dispersion 

Resin

Suspension 

Resin

Suspension 

Blending 

Resin

Vinyl 

chloride 7.1 1,300 37 140 790

Total nonvinyl 

chloride 

organic HAP

170 240 670 500 1,900

Table 12. Limits for Stripped Resins at New Major Sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 511

Pollutant

Emission Limits (ppmw)

Homopolymer Resins

Copolymer 

Bulk Resin Resin Dispersion 

Resin

Suspension 

Resin

Suspension 

Blending 

Resin

Vinyl 

chloride 7.1 480 7.3 140 790

Total nonvinyl 

chloride 

organic HAP

170 66 15 500 1,900

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. 

7. Wastewater 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 511

The final rule contains separate requirements for 

maintenance wastewater. Maintenance wastewater must meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.105.

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 

F. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements

for major sources?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 511

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 511

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.

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. 

1. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for storage vessels?

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 511

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.

For each applicable piece of equipment (

2. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for equipment leaks?

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 511

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 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 (

3. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for heat exchange systems?

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 511

than, the delay of repair action level for all monitoring 

periods during the delay of repair.

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).

4. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for process vents?

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 worstcase 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 511

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 511

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.

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.

, 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 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 Method 23. For HCl, you must demonstrate 

compliance by conducting an initial performance test using EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 511

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 Section 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 511

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 511

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.

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. 

6. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for stripped resins?

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 511

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 nonvinyl 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 nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration for each stripper for 

each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 511

must be calculated using the individual HAP concentrations 

measured for the grab. 

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the total nonvinyl 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.

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.

7. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements 

for other emission sources?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 511

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.

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?

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 

1. Notifications and Reports
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 511

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.

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 

2. Recordkeeping
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 511

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.

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

I. What are the requirements for area sources?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 511

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 Limitsa

Existing Sources New Sources

PVC-only process 

vents

Vinyl 

chloride 5.3 ppmv 5.3 ppmv

Total 

hydrocarbons 

(THC)b

38 ppmv as 

propane

38 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic 

HAPb 140 ppmv 140 ppmv

Dioxin/Furans 

(TEQ) 0.13 ng/dscm 0.13 ng/dscm

PVC-combined 

process vents

Vinyl 

chloride 0.56 ppmv 0.56 ppmv

Total 

hydrocarbons 

(THC)b

2.3 ppmv as 

propane

2.3 ppmv as 

propane

Total organic 

HAP 29 ppmv 29 ppmv

Dioxin/Furans 

(TEQ) 0.076 ng/dscm 0.076 ng/dscm

a ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent O2.

 ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent O2. b Total organic HAP is an alternative compliance limit for THC. 

5. Other Emission Sources

Other emission sources include reactor and other component 

opening losses and gasholders. These emission sources at 

existing and new PVC area sources are subject to the same 

standards and compliance requirements as major sources, as 

discussed in Section IV.E.5 and IV.F.7 of this preamble. 

6. Stripped Resins
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 511

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 170 170
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 511

HAP

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 511

Table 15. Limits for Process Wastewater at New and Existing Area 

Sources

Pollutant Emission Limits 

(ppmw)

Vinyl chloride 2.9

Total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP 0.018

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews (

J. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

e.g.

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 

, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 511

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 website (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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 511

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 511

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 511

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:

Comment [A6]: Does this belong here 

or in the response?

Two commenters requested clarification on the 

applicability of 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 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 511

Response:

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 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 511

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 section 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 PVCPUs, 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 PVCPUs, storage vessels, surge control vessels, 

heat exchange systems, wastewater, and process 

wastewater treatment systems that are associated with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 511

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 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. 

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 

B. Overlapping rules
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 511

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 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (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” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 511

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 PVCcombined 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 utilizes a control 

device already subject to another Part 63 MACT rule such as the 

SOCMI HON, then the facility must meet standards.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 511

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 511

from the PVC process might not meet the PVC MACT limits and 

achieve the required HAP reductions (described in the previous 

paragraph). 

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 

C. Pollutants Regulated
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 511

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 section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), EPA has 

set standards for all HAP emitted from the major source PVC 

source category. Contrary to the commenters’ assertion, 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), EPA has authority to use surrogates to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 511

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 major and area source PVC facilities. We 

have set separate limits for vinyl chloride, which is an organic 

HAP, because vinyl chloride is the most prevalent HAP in 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 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 

Comment [A7]: Same as previous 

comment – consider a different word 

or description.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 511

thermal oxidizer). As shown below, HCl is also a surrogate for 

chlorine. We have limited test data indicating that chlorine 

may be present in emissions from process vents. The HCl 

standard will address such emissions, however, to the extent 

they exist.1

As noted above, we are finalizing a limit on THC as a 

surrogate for organic HAP emissions from process vents. THC is 

an appropriate surrogate, applying the 3-part “test” cited by 

the commenter. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 987 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004). First, the target HAP at issue here (i.e., organic 

HAP) from PVC process vents are “invariably” present in the 

surrogate (THC), i.e., PVC process vent emissions always contain 

organic HAP, and the organic HAP are comprised of hydrocarbons 

that will be measured as THC. Second, methods to control THC 

(in this case, a combination of vapor recovery, such as 

condensers, along with thermal oxidizers for PVC process vents)

indiscriminately control the target organic HAP. Finally, the 

methods to control THC are the only means to achieve reductions 

of the target organic HAP from process vents that we have 

identified for this source category. We considered whether 

changes could be made to the vinyl chloride monomer reaction 

 

 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 511

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 produced for sale 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 D.C. 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 D.C. Circuit held that 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 511

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 stripped resin and process wastewater, the final rule 

includes emission limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP, as opposed to THC. We were not able to establish a THC 

limit as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions from stripped 

resins and process wastewater because the data available to the 

Agency, upon which the standards were based, were from sampling 

a slurry (liquid), not a gaseous stream which is necessary to 

collect THC data and to establish THC limits. Specifically, the 

data in the record were sampling data taken at the outlet of the 

resin strippers. The outlet of a resin stripper is the most 

readily available place to obtain a sample (as opposed to the 

resin dryer exhaust) and is appropriate given that we project 

that all of the HAP in the resin stripper outlet are ultimately 

Comment [A8]: It would be helpful if 

you could drop a footnote to a 

supporting document that indicated 

this was the case. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 511

emitted from downstream processes (e.g., resin dryers). However, 

at the outlet of the stripper, the resin is in either a slurry 

(liquid) or dry (solid) form, as opposed to a gaseous stream, as 

is the case for process vents. There are no test methods 

available to determine levels of THC in a liquid or solid phase. 

Accordingly, we had no basis on which to set a THC limit and we 

therefore established limits for vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP from stripped resin and process 

wastewater.

However, the control approaches used to meet the total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits are the same as those 

used to reduce emissions of individual organic HAP species. 

Specifically, because total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP is 

comprised of many individual organic HAP, the reduction of total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP by means of a resin stripper (for 

resins) and a wastewater stripper (for wastewater) will likewise 

reduce the target individual non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. 

Further, we are aware of only one means to control organics from 

resins and process wastewater for this source category and that 

is through the use of a stripper, which indiscriminately 

controls all organics, and we are not aware of any other control 

that would indiscriminately capture all organics from resins and 

process wastewater. Accordingly, we believe it is reasonable to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 511

set a final limit for total non-vinyl organic HAP from resins 

and process wastewater. 

Moreover, as some of the commenters recognized, a total 

non-vinyl organic HAP limit is particularly appropriate given 

the unique nature of this industry. We set the total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP MACT floor limit for stripped resin and 

process wastewater on specific information provided to the EPA 

from stripped resin and process wastewater sampling conducted by 

each company in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 

information collection request of the PVC industry. In 

evaluating approaches to setting standards based on the stripped 

resin and process wastewater data, the EPA received 

uncontroverted information that a PVC facility can and often 

does produce many different grades2

 

2 “Grade” of PVC resin is more specific than “type” of PVC resin. See 

definitions in subpart HHHHHHH.

of PVC resin, each having 

different characteristics based on a different chemical 

formulation and production recipes and consequently different 

organic HAP emission profiles, and that different grades can be 

produced on a daily basis. PVC facilities produce a particular 

grade of resin according to the needs of their customers and 

their own business decisions, and based on information provided 

to the EPA by industry, we conclude that the organic HAP emitted 

necessarily varies depending on the particular grade of resin
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 511

produced. In fact, according to one commenter, a particular 

facility may produce up to a 100 grades of different resins, 

sometimes producing different resins within a single 24-hour 

period. Given the large number of resins that may be produced 

by a particular facility, the associated diversity of chemical 

formulations and production recipes for these different resin 

grades, and the resulting differences in organic HAP emission 

profiles coupled with the fact that the control approaches used 

to meet the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits

are the same as those used to reduce emissions of individual 

organic HAP species and are the only means of achieving such 

reductions, we are finalizing total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP standards for stripped resin and process wastewater at PVC 

production facilities. These standards together with standards 

for vinyl chloride directly limit all organic HAP from PVC 

stripped resin and process wastewater, as reported in 

test/sampling data available to the EPA.

In response to comments, we created five subcategories in 

the final rule for stripped resins. If, as some of the 

commenters suggest, we were to set individual organic HAP 

limits, industry would likely argue that we would have to 

consider setting standards for a prohibitively large number of 

subcategories, perhaps as many as there are grades of PVC resin, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 511

to ensure that facilities producing grades of PVC resin with 

incompatible reaction processes and/or chemical inputs were not 

grouped in an inappropriate manner. In the final rule, we 

established the additional subcategories in response to comments 

where we found data in the record to support such 

subcategorization. Without extensive additional data from 

industry detailing each of the resin grades they produce, by 

facility, with attendant emissions information, we are not in a 

position to evaluate whether additional subcategories are 

appropriate. As such, we have no basis to establish additional 

subcategories on this record. Setting a total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP limit accounts for the unique nature of the 

industry and the multiple grades of resin produced, sometimes on 

a daily basis, and the variability inherent in such process. 

As explained previously, we are establishing THC as a 

surrogate for controlling all organic HAP other than vinyl 

chloride and CDD/CDF from process vents. However, as a 

compliance alternative in the final rule, facilities may comply 

with an equivalent total organic HAP emission limit in lieu of 

the THC limit for process vents. Such an alternative is 

appropriate for process vents for the same reasons that total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits are appropriate for 

stripped resins and process wastewater, as discussed above. (See 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 511

preamble section III.C for further discussion on the emission 

limits we are establishing.) We also note that the approach of 

setting total organic HAP limits for process vents (or total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for stripped resins and 

process wastewater) is consistent with the approach in other 

NESHAP, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (the MON), which 

has been successful in limiting, not only total organic HAP, but 

also individual organic HAP.

Finally, one commenter incorrectly states that the EPA set 

only vinyl chloride limits for monitoring of leaks, process 

components and wastewater streams. As explained above, the EPA 

set limits for pollutants, including but not limited to vinyl 

chloride, emitted from process vents, stripped resins and 

process wastewater. The commenter incorrectly states that the 

equipment leak and heat exchanger standards have only a vinyl 

chloride limit. In the final rule, applicability of the 

equipment leak work practice standards is determined based on 

whether the equipment is in HAP service. In HAP service means 

that a process component (including equipment) either contains 

or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by weight or 

a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP. Additionally, 

all equipment leak standards are based on determining VOC leaks 

from equipment using EPA’s Method 21 and fixing leaks that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 511

detected. VOC (and vinyl chloride) are present throughout the 

PVC process. As such, if you identify a leak of VOC or vinyl 

chloride, fixing that leak necessarily will eliminate the VOC or

vinyl chloride emissions and any other HAP emissions. Thus, VOC 

and vinyl chloride are markers that are indisputably present in 

all PVC streams. A HAP-specific leak definition is not possible 

because Method 21 detects VOC, not individual compounds. For 

heat exchange systems, based on comments received, we are 

including in the final rule a vinyl chloride leak action level 

and monitoring requirements because vinyl chloride is always 

present along with other HAP when process material leaks into 

cooling water, and therefore, detection of vinyl chloride and 

repair of the leak will control the leak for all HAP. However, 

because some facilities already have programs in place to detect 

total strippable VOC in cooling water, we are also providing 

that as an option for detecting leaks into cooling water. Here, 

the same principle applies in that, controlling the VOC leak 

will in turn control HAP that leak into the cooling water. 

Thus, irrespective of whether a source monitors for VOC or VC, 

the result is the same: controlling any such identified leak 

will, in turn control any HAP that leak into the cooling water. 

Finally, with respect to the commenter that suggested that 

limits for the individual most toxic and most prevalent HAP
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 511

should be developed, the commenter fails to recognize that EPA 

has authority to use surrogates to address HAP. EPA has 

appropriately identified the HAP emitted from the PVC source 

category and set standards for those HAP, including using 

surrogates where appropriate.

Comment: Several commenters raised issues with the term 

“HAP” and related terms, such as “TOHAP” and “total HAP.” Two 

commenters stated that, though the EPA refers to sampling and 

specific limits for HAP and organic HAP, there is no definition 

of HAP, organic HAP, or total organic HAP provided for process 

vents, stripped resin, or other emission sources. Two commenters 

stated that these subsets of HAP should be restricted and 

defined because the PVC manufacturing process does not have the 

potential to emit the entire list of HAP designated by the CAA. 

Another commenter requested that a subset of the complete list 

of total organic HAP be defined specifically for suspension type 

process facilities. Two commenters submitted a subset of the 

complete list of organic HAP that they believe is appropriate to 

define in the rule. The commenters submitted 19 HAP that should 

be subjected to a stripped resin limitation through the total 

organic HAP approach and 11 additional HAP that were not 

detected, but were analyzed and reported as non-detect. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 511

Response: The term “hazardous air pollutant” (HAP) is 

defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as “any air pollutant listed in or 

pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act”. It follows directly that 

“total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP” means all organic HAP 

except vinyl chloride. The terms “organic HAP” and “total 

organic HAP” are commonly understood terms meaning HAP that are 

carbon based, individually or in total, respectively.

In the proposed rule, we did not limit the definition of 

total organic HAP for process vents to a specific set of organic 

HAP or total HAP for stripped resins and wastewater to a 

specific set of total HAP that are emitted by the PVC industry. 

Part of our intent through the issuance of the required process

vent testing and resin sampling under our CAA section 114 

authority was to obtain data on which HAP were in fact used, 

produced, and/or emitted from PVC production facilities. We have 

considered the commenters’ suggestions on requiring compliance 

based on a subset of HAPs, i.e., those HAPs that have the 

potential to be emitted from PVC facilities. Based on our 

analysis of the process vent testing data, resin sampling data, 

and responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 

information collection request, we recognize that the industry 

does not emit all HAP, but rather only a subset of HAP, 

primarily organic HAP, as discussed above. We reviewed the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 104 of 511

commenters' lists of HAP for stripped resin and compared those 

lists to the sampling data submitted. We confirmed that PVC 

stripped resin and process wastewater has been shown to contain 

or may contain 30 of the HAP listed under section 112(b) of the 

CAA, in addition to vinyl chloride, and so we are requiring 

facilities to analyze, at a minimum, those 30 organic HAP and

vinyl chloride, in both stripped resins and process wastewater 

samples. Although these 30 HAP are all the organic HAP we 

identified in the data available to the EPA, it is not 

appropriate to set individual HAP limits because the combination 

and quantity of each of these 30 HAP vary depending on the wide 

variety of resin grades produced within the PVC industry. As 

discussed previously, it would be impractical to set individual 

HAP limits specific to the potential large number of 

subcategories that would be necessary to account for the more 

than 100 different resin grades produced

We are also requiring facilities to develop a facilityspecific list of HAP for both stripped resins and process 

wastewater. The facility-specific list of HAP must include all 

HAP expected to be present in stripped resin and process 

wastewater samples, including any HAP not listed in table 10 of 

the final rule. Our analysis is documented in the memorandum, 

”Analysis of HAP in Stripped Resins and Wastewater for the Final 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 511

PVC Rule.” Under this final rule, to meet the stripped resin and 

process wastewater total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission 

limits, you must test for those 30 HAP that are known to 

possibly be present in the PVC production process based on all 

the data available to the EPA, and in addition, sources must 

test for HAP beyond those 30 that facilities are aware of based 

on the resin grades they produce. We are including those

compounds to ensure that they would be included in the 

facility’s calculation of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 

should those compounds become present in the process in 

detectable quantities.

For process vents, demonstrating compliance with the THC 

limit does not require testing based on a list of specific HAP

as EPA Method 25A measures total hydrocarbons and not speciated 

HAP.

D. Subcategories

Comment: Two commenters contended that the EPA should use 

data from stand-alone PVC facilities to establish the process 

vent emission limits. Another commenter asserted that the agency 

recognized that it was important to set standards based on PVConly vent gas flows and required industry to isolate and burn 

PVC-only vent streams at co-located facilities. The commenter 

added that thermal oxidizers at stand-alone EDC/VCM plants or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 106 of 511

co-located with PVC plants tend to be much larger than those at 

stand-alone PVC units. The commenter stated that to produce data 

in response to the CAA section 114 testing required for PVC 

facilities, large volumes of natural gas were burned to treat 

the small PVC-only vent streams to make up for the other 

streams, such as EDC or VCM, that had been tied off as 

instructed by the section 114 survey, resulting in a nonrepresentative emission profile. The commenter noted that the 

Vinyl Institute Working Group submitted to the EPA a list of 

facilities (stand-alone PVC plants) that it believes is 

appropriate to use in setting the MACT floor for process vents. 

Response: This final rule contains two subcategories for 

process vents: PVC-only process vents and PVC-combined process 

vents. In response to comments submitted by the industry and 

others, based on our review of those comments and a subsequent 

review of the testing data submitted in response to our August 

21, 2009 CAA section 114 information collection request for the 

PVC industry, we determined that there are significant 

differences in the size and type of process vents that originate 

from PVCPU and process vents from PVCPU that are combined with 

process vents from other source categories, such as EDC/VCM or 

other HON sources, prior to control. The differences in the HAP 

concentrations in the process vent streams arise from the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 107 of 511

fundamental differences in the products, unit operations and the 

manufacturing process of the source categories that are 

typically co-located with and/or that share a control device 

with a PVC affected source. Examples include EDC and VCM

manufacturing processes, which are commonly co-located with a 

PVC production process and manufacture the primary raw materials 

(ethylene dichloride is used to produce vinyl chloride monomer) 

used in the production of PVC resin. Additionally, the average 

control device volumetric outlet flow rate is 2,100 percent 

greater for process vents from PVCPU that are combined with 

process vents from other source categories compared to process 

vents that originate only from PVCPU, a significant difference 

in size. Therefore, in the final rule, we have established two 

subcategories for process vents: PVC-only and PVC-combined. PVConly process vents comprise process vent streams that originate 

solely from a PVC affected source. We agree with commenters who

suggested that the testing conducted using large volumes of 

natural gas to treat these small PVC-only vent streams did not 

produce a representative emission profile. Therefore, we did not 

include those tests results to determine the PVC-only MACT 

floors for process vents. PVC-combined process vents comprise 

process vent streams that originate from a PVCPU and that are 

combined or are co-controlled with process vent streams that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 108 of 511

originate from other source categories, such as EDC or VCM 

production processes. Details on the determination of MACT 

floors and limits for process vents are documented in the 

technical memorandum, Revised Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, which is available 

in the docket.

Comment: Two commenters contended that PolyOne's vent gas 

absorbers are recovery devices and not control devices because 

they capture and recycle vinyl chloride back into the production 

process, rather than treating it as a waste. The commenters

added that, because PolyOne's vent gas absorbers do not operate 

at elevated temperatures or combust the vinyl chloride, they do 

not result in the formation of additional HAP or generation of 

unwanted by-products, such as CDD/CDF and greenhouse gases. The 

commenters contended that the proposed MACT would require backup 

thermal oxidizers to be used continuously. The commenter added 

that large amounts of energy will be consumed and greenhouse 

gasses emitted in an effort to control a tiny amount of VOC. The 

commenter concluded by arguing that consideration should be 

given to the overall air impact of operating backup thermal 

oxidizers continuously. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 109 of 511

Another commenter stated that the flow rate out of 

PolyOne's absorbers is two orders of magnitude less than the 

emissions flow rate from control device technology that includes 

thermal oxidizers and scrubbers combined. The commenters stated 

that the proposed MACT should take emissions rates into 

consideration and not solely rely on emissions concentrations 

when establishing limits for recovery devices. One commenter 

added that for sites equipped with vent gas absorber recovery 

technology, thermal oxidizers are necessary only in the event of 

an outage or malfunction with the operation of the vent gas 

absorbers to ensure that any vinyl chloride, which is not 

recycled back to the process, is destroyed.

Response: The rule contains emission limits for process 

vents that apply at the point where the gaseous stream is 

released to the atmosphere. While we recognize that a vent gas 

absorber at the commenter’s facilities recover vinyl chloride, 

those absorbers also have stacks that emit to the atmosphere and 

would therefore be subject to the process vent limit. The rule 

does not require that affected sources use a specific control or 

recovery device to meet the process vent limits, and the final 

emission standards are not based on whether a vent gas absorber 

is classified as a recovery device or control device. An 

affected source may use any control device to reduce the process 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 511

vent emissions to meet the required limits. We considered 

setting alternative formats for the process vent emission 

limits. However, we did not have sufficient information provided 

from industry on process vent stream flow rates and 

concentrations to develop or evaluate other formats, such as 

mass emission rates.

Comment: Many commenters contended that the EPA should 

further subcategorize resins. One commenter stated that EPA 

should recognize that resin recipes, production processes and 

equipment required for end product utility, govern the emissions 

and the ability to strip each type of resin. The commenter 

stated that the data provided by the Vinyl Institute demonstrate 

the differences between production processes and PVC morphology 

and particle size of the PVC products manufactured. The 

commenter added that these differences equate to differences in 

ability to steam strip the resin of vinyl chloride, among other 

things. 

Several commenters stated that copolymer resins are a 

completely different chemistry from homopolymer resins and 

should be regulated through their own subcategory. The 

commenters requested that EPA subcategorize stripped resin by 

differences in chemistry (co-monomers), raw material inputs, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 111 of 511

process equipment, resin types and grades or other factors, 

provided such subcategorization is reasonable. 

One commenter objected to the agency’s proposal to 

subcategorize resins as “bulk” and “dispersion,” with all other 

resins, including copolymers, suspension blending and suspension 

resins relegated to an “other resin” subcategory. The commenter 

stated that the EPA’s proposed subcategorization scheme is 

textually inconsistent and will likely cause regulatory 

confusion within the industry. The commenter stated the agency’s 

proposed subcategories ignore critical differences in processing 

equipment, material inputs and resin morphology that have a 

critical and differentiating impact on the HAP profile of the 

various resins. The commenter contended that, at a minimum, the 

EPA should organize stripped resin limits along the following 

subcategories for homopolymers: Suspension, dispersion, bulk and 

blending; and for copolymers: Suspension, dispersion, blending 

and solution. The commenter added that by definition,

“copolymers” were considered distinct enough from polyvinyl 

chloride polymers that the EPA used the conjunctive “and 

copolymers” to describe the source category being addressed 

here. 

One commenter added that the EPA should subcategorize 

copolymers by the resin type because they are capable of being 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 112 of 511

manufactured in different processes (suspension, dispersion and 

solution) that present completely different HAP emission 

profiles. The commenter stated that the general class of 

copolymers requires differentiation from the homopolymer 

category. The commenter added that within this copolymer class 

there are different resin types (suspension, dispersion, 

blending and solution) that require subcategorization similar to 

homopolymers. The commenter continued that for each resin type, 

however, the choice of co-monomer creates different HAP profiles 

affecting the HAP analyzed; co-monomers are chosen, based on the 

end product characteristics specified by the customer. The 

commenter added that the vinylidene chloride copolymer is a 

highly crystalline polymer, making the removal or stripping of 

vinyl chloride from the resin more difficult than typical PVC 

polymers. The commenter stated that, to require its facility to 

meet this proposed standard for all other resins, is technically 

infeasible, based on the unique chemistry used. 

Several commenters contended that dispersion resins should 

be regulated separately from suspension blending resins. The 

commenters stated that dispersion resins and suspension blending 

resins should be included in the MACT as their own categories 

due to the very different nature of both the manufacturing 

technologies used and the resins produced. The commenter added 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 113 of 511

that suspension blending resins are a type of specialty resin 

used in flooring, automotive interiors and synthetic leather 

products. The commenters stated that the proposed MACT does not 

specifically address suspension blending resins, leaving this 

class of resin manufacturing unclear. Further, for the same 

reasons discussed for dispersion resins, the commenters 

contended that suspension blending resins require a separate 

subcategory under the proposed MACT. The commenters asserted 

that suspension blending resins have very different 

characteristics than generic suspension resins, including smooth 

surfaces and different particle sizes of distribution, all of 

which present different challenges when stripping vinyl chloride 

from a different resin.

One commenter added that the previous 30-day data submitted 

pursuant to the EPA's CAA section 114 request for PVC facilities 

were not representative of blending PVC resin alone. The 

commenter stated that the data were for suspension, including 

suspension blending PVC resin. The commenter asserted that

samples for regular suspension resin were composited with 

blending PVC resin samples to get one daily suspension analysis 

rather than analyzing the samples separately. The commenter 

stated that both categories react to steam stripping quite 

differently and truly are different products. One commenter 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 114 of 511

submitted data to support their assertion that suspension 

blending PVC resin, because of its unique morphology, could not 

possibly be stripped to the levels proposed for suspension 

general purpose resin. Two commenters argued that further 

subcategories of suspension resins should either be established 

or considered. One commenter requested that the EPA 

subcategorize the emission limits for the “other resin” category 

into the following subcategories: Low molecular weight (LMW), 

high molecular weight (HMW) and general purpose.

Response: In the proposed rule, limits were developed for 

new and existing sources for three subcategories of PVC resin: 

(1) Bulk resin, (2) dispersion resin, and (3) all other resins. 

Based on our review of the public comments and our concurrent 

review and analysis of the additional data on the vinyl chloride 

concentrations in stripped resins submitted by the PVC industry, 

we determined that the data clearly show that there are 

significant differences in the concentrations of vinyl chloride 

and other HAP that remain in the various types of resins 

following stripping. The differences in the concentrations of 

vinyl chloride and other HAP that remain in the various resin 

types are a direct consequence of several factors related to the 

overall process to produce each resin type. These factors 

include: the different raw materials necessary to produce each 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 115 of 511

resin type, the unique process chemistry required to produce 

each resin type, the process conditions required to produce each 

resin type, and differences in the morphology of the resin 

particles following polymerization. The current technology that 

is used to remove residual vinyl chloride and HAP from 

polymerized resin is steam stripping. The conditions under which 

steam stripping is performed are unique to the resin type being 

produced and the ability to strip, or remove the maximum amount 

of residual vinyl chloride and HAP from the resin types, is

constrained by the resin morphology, product quality, and 

customer end-use requirements. The different resin types all 

differ in morphology, particle size, and porosity, which all 

affect the ability to remove residual, or unreacted vinyl 

chloride monomer and other HAP from the resin matrix. For a 

steam stripping unit that is operating as designed to remove the 

maximum amount of residual vinyl chloride and HAP from 

polymerized resin, simply adding more steam to that unit may 

result in some additional removal of vinyl chloride and other 

HAP, but the additional heat from the steam will degrade the 

resin and thus negatively affect the resin quality such that it 

will not meet customer or performance specifications. Therefore, 

for the final rule, we are responding to the comments and 

information submitted to the EPA by dividing the limits for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 511

stripped resins into two general groupings: (1) Homopolymers and 

(2) copolymers. Homopolymer resins are further divided into four

subcategories: (1) Suspension resin, (2) dispersion resin, (3) 

suspension blending resin and (4) bulk resin. Some commenters 

suggested further subcategorizing copolymer resins; however, the 

data submitted by industry to the EPA did not include sufficient 

specificity that would allow developing additional subcategories 

of copolymer resin types. Therefore, copolymer resins are not 

further subcategorized in the final rule. Other commenters 

suggested additional subcategories based on molecular weight, 

grade, and other physical properties. However, we did not

develop additional subcategories for various resin grades (e.g., 

low molecular weight (LMW), high molecular weight (HMW), or 

general purpose) because this could have potentially resulted in 

hundreds or thousands of resin subcategories, each with its own 

MACT analysis, making such an approach impractical to establish 

and administer.

Following proposal, industry submitted additional data and 

information on several emission sources: (1) Process vents, (2)

stripped resins, (3) process wastewater and (4) gasholders. For 

process vents, stripped resins, and process wastewater, we 

received additional data for organic compounds and HCl. Metal 

E. MACT Floor Calculation
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 117 of 511

HAP are not present in the PVC production process. The postproposal data submittals are available in the docket. The data 

were used to revise the MACT floors and impacts.

Process Vents

1. Additional Data Submitted

Industry provided data clarifying which PVC facilities are 

co-located with EDC and VCM production or other source 

categories and which facilities are stand-alone PVC producers. 

Industry also provided clarification of the conditions (e.g., 

percentage contribution of the PVCPU to the total process vent 

stream) during stack testing conducted in response to our August 

21, 2009, CAA section 114 survey and testing request sent to PVC 

companies. Industry identified which facilities typically cocontrol non-PVC streams. The EPA also received results of 

emissions tests conducted for EDC and VCM production facilities, 

some of which are co-located and co-controlled with PVC 

production facilities, as required by our March 16, 2011 CAA 

section 114 survey and testing request for VCM/EDC production 

companies. The CAA section 114 request required that emission 

data be collected by testing the VCM/EDC process vents for vinyl 

chloride, dioxin/furan and THC emissions. The results of 

emissions tests from the co-located and co-controlled facilities 

included data for PVC-combined process vents (e.g. any VCM/EDC 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 118 of 511

process vent that also contains a PVC process stream) that were

included in the MACT floor analysis for PVC-combined process 

vents.

Stripped Resin

Industry provided a database containing 4 years of daily 

average vinyl chloride concentrations in stripped resins, 

determined by using EPA Method 107 for all but two PVC 

production facilities. The provided database contained 

information for four specific resin types: (1) Suspension, (2) 

dispersion, (3) suspension blending and (4) vinyl acetate 

copolymer (VACO). 

Industry also submitted an updated 30-day resin sampling 

concentration database for total HAP, based on using various EPA 

SW-846 Methods and providing additional specificity on resin 

types and corrections to previously submitted data; VACO and 

suspension blending data were separated from dispersion and 

suspension data, respectively. Another commenter submitted new 

vinyl chloride and total organic HAP data for suspension 

blending resin as a result of additional sampling and testing 

performed by the company independent of the EPA's CAA section 

114 request for the PVC production industry.

Additionally, results that were reported as composites of 

two or more resin types were identified by resin type, and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 511

previous results from the OxyVinyls suspension plants that were 

indicated as a reporting limit were changed to non-detect. 

Vinylidene/vinyl chloride copolymer concentration data from Dow 

Chemical were also added to the database. 

Wastewater

Commenters submitted approximately 1 year of vinyl chloride 

concentration data at the outlet of wastewater strippers for 

nine PVC production facilities. All concentrations were obtained 

using EPA Method 107. The data were provided on a varying basis 

across facilities (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). 

Gasholders

In response to industry comments, we requested and received 

annual emissions estimates for small and large sized gasholders. 

In addition to submitting comments regarding suggested control 

and work practice options for gasholders, industry also provided 

estimates of the capital cost and emission reductions for work 

practices that could be used to reduce emissions from 

gasholders, i.e., using floating objects.

Equipment leaks 

At proposal, we ranked the LDAR programs used at each 

affected PVC source from most stringent to least stringent, 

based on the leak definitions, monitoring frequencies, control 

requirements and repair requirements reported in the responses 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 120 of 511

to our August 21, 2009 section 114 information collection 

request. We then identified the LDAR programs employed by the

best-performing five sources. The results of this analysis 

showed that three out of the best-performing five sources comply 

with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2 controls. Therefore, we 

proposed that existing and new affected sources comply with the 

LDAR program requirements of the National Emission Standards for 

Equipment Leaks-Control Level 2 Standards, subpart UU of 40 CFR 

part 63.

During the comment period, one of the facilities that had 

responded that they complied with subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 

(Shintech Freeport), stated that the survey response was in 

error, and the facility is actually complying with the equipment 

leak requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. This change 

results in a revision to the MACT floor for existing major 

sources, which is discussed in Section V.E.2 of this preamble.

2. MACT Floor Revisions

In the final rule, we revised the MACT floor-based emission 

limits for process vents, stripped resins and wastewater, as 

discussed in the technical memorandum, Revised Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the 

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category, which is available in the docket.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 121 of 511

Process Vents

In the final rule we calculated the MACT floors for the two 

process vent subcategories, PVC-only and PVC-combined, 

accounting for variability using the Upper Predictive Limit 

(UPL) calculation. At proposal, a 99-percent UPL calculation was 

used where the m value (representing the number of test runs 

used in the compliance average) was 30 for the THC compliance 

limit option. For the final rule, we changed the m value to 3 

because 3 THC test runs using EPA Method 25A will be performed 

over the 5 year period with which compliance will be averaged.

Therefore, an m value of 3 for the THC UPL calculation is 

appropriate.

In the final rule, we revised the procedure for identifying 

a representative method detection level (RDL) for vinyl 

chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF, THC, and total organic HAP for PVC-only 

and PVC-combined process vents. At proposal, we determined the 

RDL by identifying the highest test-specific MDL reported by the 

top 5 best-performing facilities for each pollutant in each 

subcategory that was also less than the calculated average 

emission concentration of those top 5 best-performing 

facilities. 

For the final rule, the RDL for vinyl chloride and total 

organic HAP was determined by identifying the available reported 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 122 of 511

pollutant-specific MDL values for the top 5 best-performing 

units regardless of any subcategory. However, the data set of 

reported pollutant-specific MDL values included MDL values only 

from reference methods for New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) and NESHAP rulemakings since they are the established 

compliance methods for air pollutants and have a more robust 

quality assurance procedure. For our August 21, 2009 CAA section 

114 testing request, other test methods besides reference 

methods for NSPS/NESHAP (i.e., Method 0031) were used to account 

for all the possible HAP that could potentially be emitted from 

process vents. Emission data collected as a result of 

performance testing with non-reference methods for NSPS/NESHAP 

were used in the MACT floor analyses since the resulting values 

could be measured using reference methods. From that combined 

pool of MDL data, we calculated the arithmetic mean value. We 

then called the resulting mean of the MDL values the RDL. 

For HCl and CDD/CDF we used RDL values based on data 

collected for several hundred Method 26A and Method 23 emissions 

tests from various industries, a much larger data set than the 

one compiled only from PVCPU testing. The RDL values calculated 

from the larger data sets are more representative of the 

inherent measurement variability both within and between testing 

companies. The RDL values were determined by the same procedure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 123 of 511

described above for vinyl chloride and total organic HAP. All of 

the available reported pollutant-specific MDL values for the 

best-performing facilities regardless of any subcategory were 

identified and an arithmetic mean was calculated from the 

resulting data set and determined to be the RDL.

For THC we determined that the RDL for Method 25A for a 10 

ppm propane span would be 0.5 ppm propane. We arrived at this 

RDL by surveying the typical flame ionization analyzers in use 

by the testing community and evaluating the required method 

criteria in Method 25A. The survey of the instruments yielded 

several vender stated instrument detection limits from 0.01 to 

0.5 ppm as carbon with one independent third party degermation 

of 0.8 ppm as carbon. In addition, several instruments' minimum 

reportable resolution is 0.1 ppm as propane. The method criteria 

allows for a 3 percent zero and span drift during performance 

runs and an initial criteria of 5 percent of the calibration 

gas. The sum allowable calibration error and drift would be 

approximately 0.475 ppm as propane (using a 3.5 ppm propane span 

gas), which would be higher than the instrumental detection 

limits. 

For vinyl chloride, HCl, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic 

HAP, the MACT floor emission limit was compared to 3 times the 

RDL. As in the proposed rule, if 3 times the RDL was greater 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 124 of 511

than the calculated MACT floor emission limit, we concluded that 

the MACT floor emission limit does not account entirely for 

measurement variability and, therefore, we used the value equal 

to 3 times the RDL in place of the calculated MACT floor 

emission limit. The variability analysis conducted for the final 

rule is contained in the memorandum titled Revised Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the 

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category, and is available in the docket.

Stripped Resin

Vinyl chloride and total HAP limits for stripped resins 

were calculated at proposal using a 99-percent UPL calculation 

and 30 days of vinyl chloride and other HAP data from all 

facilities that conducted resin sampling and analysis as part of 

our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 information collection 

request for the PVC industry. In developing the proposal, we 

requested sources subject to the CAA section 114 request provide 

information on the residual compounds in the resin leaving the 

stripper on a mass-basis. After the mass-based sampling results 

were submitted to us, the Vinyl Institute, on behalf of the PVC 

industry, provided a database of the concentration values that 

were used by the facilities to convert their concentrations to 

mass-based values. For the proposed rule, we calculated limits 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 125 of 511

for dispersion resin, based on the reported mass-based values 

for each HAP present in the resin, which we then converted to 

concentrations, based on dispersion resin production. The 

proposed limits for all other resin types (i.e., suspension 

resin) were calculated, based on the originally measured vinyl 

chloride concentration values that were reported by each 

suspension resin facility and compiled into the concentration 

database that was supplied to us by the Vinyl Institute. The 

limit for bulk resin was calculated using the vinyl chloride and 

other HAP concentrations provided by the single bulk resin 

manufacturing facility in their response to the CAA section 114 

request for the PVC industry. Variability was not assessed in 

the calculation of the limit for bulk resin because the data for 

vinyl chloride and total organic HAP consisted of one unique 

value each. 

We received numerous comments on our approach at proposal 

for calculating stripped resin limits, which included comments 

on the subcategories, the use of mass-based values for 

determining the limits for dispersion resin, the use of vinyl 

chloride concentration data collected via EPA Method 107 in 

calculating a total organic HAP limit where a different test 

method was used for other non-vinyl organic chloride HAP, our 

approach for accounting for variability in the stripped resin 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 511

limits and the m value in the UPL calculation for both vinyl 

chloride and total organic HAP.

During the public comment period, the Vinyl Institute 

provided us with an updated database, as described above, of the 

vinyl chloride and other HAP concentration values that were 

measured as the resin was exiting the stripper(s) and that were 

not then converted by the facilities to mass values. We also 

received supplemental resin sampling data from one PVC facility 

(PolyOne) and further information regarding their previous data 

submittals. In consideration of the comments received and our 

subsequent review and analysis of the submitted data, we made 

several changes to the limits for stripped resins. No additional 

data were provided from the single bulk resin manufacturer, so 

the final limits for bulk resin were recalculated only to remove 

vinyl chloride from the calculation for the total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP limit. Variability was not assessed in the 

calculation of the limit for bulk resin because the data for 

vinyl chloride and total HAP consisted of one unique value each.

For the final rule, we used the original concentration 

values, as measured during the required emission testing of our 

August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 information collection request, 

and analyzed it as the basis for setting the MACT floors for 

suspension, dispersion, suspension blending, and copolymer 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 127 of 511

resin. This provided a consistent basis to compare 

concentrations of vinyl chloride and other HAP and calculate 

limits on a consistent basis. At proposal, the vinyl chloride 

limits for all subcategories except for bulk resin were 

calculated using data obtained from EPA SW-846 Method 8260B and 

a representative detection limit analysis was performed, based 

on those data. For the final rule, vinyl chloride limits were 

determined by using the 99.9 th percentile and based on 4 years 

of vinyl chloride concentration data that were obtained by 

sampling using EPA Method 107 and provided by the Vinyl 

Institute. As stated in the proposal preamble, a UPL is an

appropriate statistical interval for use in determining the 

emission limit as it incorporates observed variability in the 

sample for the source category. For this rule, we used the 99.9th

percentile as the emission limit instead of the UPL. We 

evaluated the data using both the 99th percentile and the 99.9th

percentile and determined that the 99.9th percentile (and not the 

99th percentile) more accurately accounts for the variability in 

the data set. The change in methodology was appropriate because 

the 4-year data set was sufficiently large (between 523 and 

5,165 data points total for the calculation of each limit, 

depending on the resin subcategory, and not including bulk 

resin) that it is not necessary to estimate variability by use 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 128 of 511

of the UPL equation. Rather variability is calculated directly 

from the vinyl chloride data set comprised of the lowest 

emitting sources. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of 

vinyl chloride concentration values reported were above the 

detection limit for EPA Method 107 and therefore, a 

representative detection limit analysis was not performed.

In the proposed rule, the total HAP limits for the stripped 

resin subcategories included the contribution from vinyl 

chloride. In the final rule, vinyl chloride concentrations were 

removed from the total HAP limit calculations, resulting in 

limits for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for all 

subcategories of stripped resin. This was appropriate because 

the data used to develop the MACT floors and limits for vinyl 

chloride in stripped resin were based on Method 107. While vinyl 

chloride can be analyzed using EPA SW-846 Method 8260B, a total 

HAP limit that includes vinyl chloride analyzed using that 

method would be inconsistent with our separate limit for vinyl 

chloride alone, which is based on data obtained using Method 

107. Since we have developed a separate vinyl chloride limit, it 

is not necessary to include vinyl chloride as part of the total 

HAP limit for stripped resins. Because different test methods 

were used to develop the emission standards, we are requiring 

compliance testing and sampling based on the different test 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 129 of 511

methods to demonstrate compliance with those standards. The 

differences in the test methods (e.g., the way that samples are 

collected and analyzed) caused the vinyl chloride emissions to 

differ by orders of magnitude when the same sample was tested 

using the two different methods. At proposal, variability was 

assessed for total HAP using a 99-percent UPL calculation with 

the m value set at 30 to represent 30 single daily total HAP 

values. For the final rule, variability was assessed for total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the 99-percent UPL 

calculation; however, because we are requiring compliance with 

the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for all 

subcategories to be based on a single 24-hour period taken once 

per month, we calculated the UPL for total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP using an m value of 1.

For the final rule, we revised the procedure for 

identifying an RDL for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. At 

proposal, we determined the RDL by identifying the highest testspecific MDL reported by the top 5 best-performing facilities 

for total HAP in each subcategory that was also less than the 

calculated average concentration of those top 5 best-performing 

facilities. For the final rule, the RDL for total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP was determined by identifying all of the 

available MDL values for the top 5 best-performing facilities 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 130 of 511

regardless of any subcategory. From that combined pool of MDL 

data, we calculated the arithmetic mean value. We then called 

the resulting mean of the MDL values the RDL. As in the proposed 

rule, if 3 times the RDL was greater than the calculated limit, 

we concluded that the MACT floor limit does not account entirely 

for measurement variability and, therefore, we used the value 

equal to 3 times the RDL in place of the calculated MACT floor 

limit.

For the final rule, we excluded: (1) Copolymer resin data 

from Dow Chemical’s Midland, Michigan, facility due to the lack 

of a sampling and analysis report documenting the analysis 

results, (2) data from Georgia Gulf’s Aberdeen, Mississippi, and 

Plaquemine, Louisiana, facilities because the data reported from 

analysis using a modification to EPA SW-846 Method 8260B could 

not be compared to data reported from other PVC facilities that 

analyzed resin concentrations using an unmodified EPA SW-846 

Method 8260B and (3) selected reported HAP concentrations from 

PolyOne’s Henry, Illinois, facility due to unexpectedly high 

reported detection limits that we determined were inaccurate 

when compared to the reported detection limits from other 

facilities.

Wastewater
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 511

For the proposed rule, the wastewater vinyl chloride 

concentration limits were calculated using a 99-percent UPL 

calculation with an m value of 1 to represent monthly 

compliance, based on a single sampling event. The limits were 

calculated, based on data provided by facilities in their CAA 

section 114 survey responses. These data represented a mix of 

sampling data, engineering estimates and mass balance 

calculations. Post proposal, industry submitted 1 year’s worth 

of vinyl chloride sampling data results from wastewater 

strippers at several facilities. For the final rule, we 

recalculated the monthly vinyl chloride concentration limits 

using a 99-percent UPL calculation, as described above, but the 

limits were calculated based on the actual vinyl chloride 

sampling data provided by the industry.

We used the UPL to assess variability in the calculation of 

the final limits for process wastewater. Despite the 

substantially larger vinyl chloride concentration data set 

provided by the industry during the public comment period, the 

99.9th percentile was not used as it was for the stripped resin 

vinyl chloride limits because the final data set was not 

sufficiently large (60 data points total, or 12 monthly vinyl 

chloride values for each of the top five performing facilities)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 132 of 511

and we had to make assumptions about the distribution of the 

data. 

In the proposed rule, total HAP emission limits were based 

on a beyond-the-floor option of complying with the National 

Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (Hazardous 

Organic NESHAP (HON)) flow rate and concentration values. For 

the final rule, we calculated a total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP emission level at the MACT floor, based on non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP data reported by PVC facilities and using 

the same calculation methodology used to determine the MACT 

floor vinyl chloride emission limit with compliance demonstrated 

on a monthly basis. In the proposed rule, the total HAP limit 

for wastewater included the contribution from vinyl chloride. In 

the final rule vinyl chloride concentrations were removed from 

the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit calculation, 

resulting in total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits for 

process wastewater. This approach was appropriate since we are 

requiring different test methods to demonstrate compliance with 

the vinyl chloride and the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 

limits.

The determination of the RDL value for vinyl chloride was 

revised for the final rule as previously described for process 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 133 of 511

vents. Industry did not provide non-detect data for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP; therefore, non-detect data were not 

incorporated in the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limit 

calculation. 

Equipment leaks

Based on changes to information reported by Shintech 

Freeport, as discussed above, we revised the MACT floor analysis 

for equipment leaks at existing sources. The results of this 

analysis showed that two out of the best-performing five sources 

comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2 requirements, and 

the remaining three complied with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. For 

the final rule, the MACT floor level of control for equipment 

leaks at existing sources, taking the median of the bestcontrolled five sources, is compliance with 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V. 

Comment: One commenter stated that in the proposed PVC 

MACT, new source emission limits for process vents, the resin 

stripper and wastewater were based on the best-performing 

emission source. However, the commenter stated that the data 

sets used to establish the new source MACT floor were not 

adequate or representative of the best performance from the 

source.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 134 of 511

The commenter added that the new source process vent MACT 

floor was established by selecting the best performance of each 

individual HAP from all facilities. The commenter asserted that, 

as a result, no current facility can meet the control level 

represented by the proposed new source MACT. The commenter 

requested that the EPA re-evaluate the feasibility of the new 

source MACT floor analysis for on-going, continuous compliance.

Response: At proposal and in this final rule, we used the 

data available to us to conduct the new source MACT floor 

analyses. A reasonable interpretation of CAA section 112(d)(3) 

is that MACT floors may be established on a HAP-by-HAP basis, so 

that there can be different pools of best performers for each 

HAP. Indeed, as illustrated below, the total facility approach 

is not only not compelled by the statutory language, but can 

lead to results so arbitrary that the approach may simply not be 

legally permissible.

Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3) is not explicit as to 

whether the MACT floor is to be based on the performance of an 

entire source or on the performance achieved in controlling 

particular HAP. Congress specified in CAA section 112(d)(3) the 

minimum level of emission reduction that could satisfy the 

requirement to adopt MACT. For new sources, this floor level is 

to be “the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 511

best controlled similar source.” For existing sources, the floor 

level is to be “the average emission limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of the existing sources” for 

categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or “the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5

sources” for categories and subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources. The language of the CAA does not address whether floor 

levels can be established HAP-by-HAP or by any other means. The 

reference to “sources” does not lead to the assumption the 

commenters make that the best-performing sources can only be the 

best performing sources for the entire suite of regulated HAP. 

Instead, the language can be reasonably interpreted as referring 

to the source as a whole or to performance as to a particular 

HAP. Similarly, the reference in the new source MACT floor 

provision to “emission control achieved by the best controlled 

similar source” can mean emission control as to a particular HAP 

or emission control achieved by a source as a whole.

The EPA’s long-standing interpretation of the CAA is that 

new source (as well as existing source) MACT floors are to be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.3

 

3 We have done precisely that in this rule by setting emission standards for 

vinyl chloride, THC (or total organic HAP), total non-vinyl chlorideorganic 

HAP, CDD/CDF, and HCl. See preamble section V.C.

One reason for 

this interpretation is that a contrary approach could yield 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 136 of 511

least common denominator floors – that is, floors reflecting 

mediocre or no control rather than what the best performers have 

achieved. See 76 FR at 15622 (March 21, 2011); 61 FR at 173687 

(April 19, 1996); 62 FR at 48363-64 (September 15, 1997) (same 

approach adopted under the very similar language of CAA section 

129(a)(2)). Such an approach would allow a source that is not

the best-performer for certain pollutants nonetheless to be 

considered the best performer overall, including for those same 

pollutants for which it is demonstrably not the best performer. 

It is even conceivable that the worst performing source for a 

pollutant could be considered the best performer for all 

pollutants, a result Congress could not have intended. 

For example, if the best-performing five sources for vinyl 

chloride were also the worst performing sources for HCl and the 

best performers for HCl were the worst performers for vinyl 

chloride, under a total facility approach the floor would end up 

not reflecting best performance for HCl and vinyl chloride. In 

such a situation, the EPA would have to make a value judgment as 

to which pollutant reductions were most critical to decide which 

sources are best-controlled. See Petitioners Brief in Medical 

Waste Institute et al. v. EPA, No. 09-1297 (D.C. Cir.) pointing 

out, in this context, that “the best performers for some 

pollutants are the worst performers for others” (p. 34) and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 137 of 511

“[s]ome of the best performers for certain pollutants are among 

the worst performers for others.” Such value judgments are 

antithetical to the direction of the statute at the MACT floorsetting stage.

The central purpose of the amended air toxics provisions 

was to apply strict technology-based emission controls on HAP. 

See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 952, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. An 

interpretation that the floor level of control must be limited 

by the performance of devices that only control some of these 

pollutants effectively guts the standards by including worse 

performers in the averaging process, whereas the EPA’s 

interpretation promotes the evident Congressional objective of 

having the floor reflect the average performance of bestperforming sources. Because Congress has not spoken to the 

precise question at issue, and the Agency’s interpretation 

effectuates statutory goals and policies in a reasonable manner, 

its interpretation must be upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 

837 (1984). 

The EPA notes, however, that if optimized performance for 

different HAP is not technologically possible due to mutually 

inconsistent control technologies (for example, if HCl 

performance decreased as organics reduction is optimized), then 

this would have to be taken into account by the EPA in 

Comment [A9]: Please use HAP
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 138 of 511

establishing a floor (or floors). The Senate Report indicates 

that if certain types of otherwise needed controls are mutually 

exclusive, the EPA is to optimize the part of the standard 

providing the most environmental protection. S. Rep. No. 228, 

101st Cong. 1st sess. 168 (although, as noted, the bill 

accompanying this Report contained no floor provisions). It 

should be emphasized, however, that the D.C. Circuit has stated 

that “the fact that no plant has been shown to be able to meet 

all of the limitations does not demonstrate that all the 

limitations are not achievable.” Chemical Manufacturers 

Association v. EPA, 885 F. 2d at 264 (upholding technology-based 

standards based on best performance for each pollutant by 

different plants, where at least one plant met each of the 

limitations but no single plant met all of them).

Such an approach would not meet the requirements of the 

CAA. For these reasons, the EPA's approach is the appropriate 

methodology for developing new source MACT floors and no further 

reevaluation is necessary.

Comment: Several commenters argued that the EPA calculated 

the MACT floor for vinyl chloride in stripped resin using data 

based on one analytical method (Method 8260B) that typically 

underreports vinyl chloride and requires compliance with a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 139 of 511

different test method (Method 107) developed specifically for 

vinyl chloride.

Response: We agree with the commenters that there was a

tension in the proposed rule between the data used to establish 

the limits and the test methods required for compliance. We 

specifically solicited comment on this issue in the proposed 

rule. After consideration of information received after the 

proposed rule, including the potential benefits and drawbacks of 

both EPA SW-846 Method 8260B and EPA Method 107 in terms of 

vinyl chloride analysis, we conclude that EPA Method 107 is more 

appropriate for developing MACT floors and for determining 

compliance with such standards for vinyl chloride in stripped 

resins.

EPA Method 107 was specifically developed for use in the 

PVC industry and is the standard method for determining vinyl 

chloride concentrations in not only stripped resin samples, but 

also wastewater samples. The method provides for better 

extraction of the vinyl chloride and, therefore, produces more 

reliable and accurate, albeit nominally higher, concentration 

results. EPA SW-846 Method 8260B also allows for the analysis of 

vinyl chloride, but the method was not specifically developed 

for measuring vinyl chloride in PVC resin samples and so has 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 511

lower reliability and accuracy compared to Method 107 in this 

context.

Based on our analysis of data collected on vinyl chloride 

concentrations in stripped resin samples analyzed using both EPA 

Method 107 and EPA SW-846 Method 8260B, concentration values 

obtained using Method 107 are consistently higher than the 

concentration values obtained on the same resin samples using

EPA SW-846 Method 8260B. As such, compliance with a vinyl 

chloride limit based on data obtained using EPA SW-846 Method 

8260B could not necessarily be determined based on compliance 

data obtained using Method 107, making the Method 107 data 

inappropriate as a required basis for determining compliance 

with the limit based on data obtained from EPA SW-846 Method 

8260B.

In the final rule, we calculated the MACT floor-based 

limits for vinyl chloride in stripped resins based on sampling 

data collected using EPA Method 107. We also require 

demonstration of compliance with the stripped resin vinyl 

chloride limits using EPA Method 107. In the final rule, we have 

also revised the stripped resin and wastewater limits for total 

organic HAP to separate vinyl chloride from those limits, 

resulting in total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits. As 

discussed above, Method 107 is the preferred method for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 141 of 511

determining vinyl chloride concentrations in PVC stripped resin 

and wastewater. The EPA believes it would be inappropriate and 

inaccurate to determine and require compliance with total HAP 

standards by combining results from the two different methods 

because the Method 107 data for vinyl chloride would be 

artificially overweighted compared to the data for non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP based on analysis using EPA SW-846 methods, 

including Method 8260B, based on the significant differences in 

sampling results when using the methods on the same samples.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the data used to 

set the MACT floor are not based on normal operating conditions. 

One commenter stated that testing pursuant to the CAA sections 

114 request was conducted at the PVC production units in late 

2009 and early 2010. The commenter contended that, during this 

period, the industry was operating by as much as 34 percent 

below its maximum production rates over the prior 3 years. One 

commenter contended that the test conditions were not 

representative of normal maximum operating conditions for a 

stand-alone PVC producer under which these values were 

determined and the EPA incorporated test results from much 

larger thermal oxidizers operated well under their maximum 

design operating conditions. To enable compliance with a 

reasonably proposed standard, the commenter stated that the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 511

should revise the final rule to allow for new sources to come 

into compliance 3 years after the final rule is promulgated.

One commenter contended that the proposed limits for vinyl 

chloride, total organic HAP and HCl need to be factored-up to 

allow facilities to operate at maximum production rates. The 

commenter added that it is necessary to factor up proposed 

limits because the EPA’s compressed schedule for gathering data 

did not allow facilities to test at maximum or near maximum 

operating rates. The commenter stated the rule, as proposed, 

requires facilities to perform compliance tests under 

hypothetical or actual worst case conditions (i.e., maximum 

operating rates), which is not the same conditions used to 

generate the data that set the standard for proposed vents. The 

commenter proposed, as an alternative, that industry should be 

allowed to test under the same conditions that were present 

during the stack tests conducted to comply with the CAA section 

114 request. 

Commenters indicated that tests done at the OxyVinyls Deer 

Park and Pasadena facilities and Formosa Plastics’ Baton Rouge 

facility were conducted under abnormal operating scenarios that 

are not indicative of their normal operation. The commenters 

provided information on how the operating conditions during the 

test differed than at normal conditions. The commenters 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 143 of 511

contended that the MACT floors should be calculated without 

these facilities. The commenter contended that data from that 

period are inappropriate for setting the MACT floor for maximum 

representative operating conditions. One commenter stated that 

during the data request for the MACT floor study, the EPA asked 

for data (stack testing and 30-day monitoring) related to 

"normal operations" in order to set up the MACT floor. However, 

the commenter asserted that the proposed rule set up limits for 

compliance (standards and operating limits) that are to be based 

on "maximum operations" from the subject facilities. The 

commenter contended that since the MACT floor data are different 

from what is expected from facilities for compliance with the 

standard, the EPA should either re-analyze the MACT floor data 

to revise the proposed regulatory requirements or ask the 

facilities for additional, and more specific, relevant data 

regarding maximum operating conditions. Other commenters 

contended that the EPA should have accounted for the testing 

variance that occurred by sampling and testing during a period 

of lower throughput for the industry. The commenters requested 

that the EPA adjust for lower production levels in the final 

rule.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 511

Response: We agree with commenters that the OxyVinyls Deer 

Park and Formosa Baton Rouge facilities have PVC-combined 

process vents and should not be included in the PVC-only MACT 

floor calculation. OxyVinyls provided additional stack test 

information for the Deer Park facility in response to our CAA 

section 114 request for VCM/EDC facilities, and the OxyVinyls 

Deer Park facility has been included in the PVC-combined MACT 

floor calculation. Further discussion regarding the OxyVinyls 

Deer Park facility is found in response to comments below and 

responses regarding area sources. The Formosa Baton Rouge 

facility has PVC-combined process vents, not PVC-only process 

vents. However, they submitted test results in response to our 

August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 information collection request 

that were collected while the control device at the facility was 

controlling vent streams from the PVC process only. Therefore, 

the test results are not representative of a PVC-only facility 

due to an abnormally large amount of natural gas combusted 

during the time of testing to maintain operation of the thermal 

oxidizer. Furthermore, that facility was not included in our CAA 

section 114 request for VCM/EDC facilities. Therefore, we have 

excluded the Baton Rouge facility from any process vent MACT 

floor calculations. We disagree with the commenters that the 

OxyVinyls Pasadena facility be removed from the PVC-combined 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 511

process vent MACT floor calculation due to the facility

experiencing a malfunction during process vent testing. 

According to the source, the specific nature of the malfunction 

at the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility allowed a percentage of the 

process vent stream to bypass the control device and enter the 

vent stack. As a result, both controlled and uncontrolled 

emissions were measured during process vent testing; however, 

the facility’s measured concentrations were still low enough to 

be included in the top 5 best-performing facilities for PVC-only 

process vents for vinyl chloride, CDD/CDF, THC and total organic 

HAP. Had the malfunction not occurred, pollutant concentrations 

would have been even less than those determined during the time 

of testing and the facility would have still been included in 

the top 5 best-performing facilities. Therefore, we are

including the OxyVinyls Pasadena facility in the MACT floor 

calculation for process vents. 

We agree with commenters that the data submitted to the EPA 

in response to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 information 

collection request were collected under operating conditions of 

less than maximum capacity. Although commenters contended that 

the MACT floors should be adjusted for lower production levels 

in the final rules, commenters did not provide any empirical 

data or methodology to support modifying the limits. As such, we 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 146 of 511

have no basis on which to consider revising the standards in 

response to this comment. We also agree with commenters that the 

testing schedule for our CAA section 114 request was compressed; 

however, commenters were not restricted from conducting

additional testing and providing additional data to the EPA 

representing maximum operating conditions, yet, no such data 

were submitted. Accordingly, EPA will use the data submitted by 

industry. Indeed, industry submitted 4 years of vinyl chloride 

resin data after the CAA section 114 testing request was 

completed and during the comment period.

We do not agree that the final rule should allow for new 

sources to come into compliance 3 years after the final rule is 

promulgated. The compliance date requirements for new and 

reconstructed sources are specified in the part 63 General 

Provisions at §63.6(b).

Comment: Several commenters argued against combining the 

PVC major source MACT and area source GACT. One commenter argued 

that it was not Congress’ intent to combine MACT and GACT 

requirements for sources listed in separate source categories, 

and that if this is going to be a trend moving forward, the EPA 

should undertake a separate rulemaking to identify and define, 

for public comment, the criteria it intends to use for combining 

major and area source categories. The other commenter stated 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 147 of 511

that if the EPA chooses to make revisions to the limits for area 

sources, they should first remove area sources from the PVC MACT 

floor database and final rule and then reopen the PVC GACT rule 

to properly consider the available technology and impact of 

proposed revisions on small area sources. One commenter 

disagreed with the EPA’s distinction between synthetic and 

natural area sources, arguing that because the CAA defines only 

two types of sources (major and area), any further distinctions 

are unlawful. Thus, they argue, the EPA’s artificial distinction 

between true and synthetic area sources in order to include 

synthetic area sources in the PVC major source MACT floor 

database is unlawful and inconsistent with past agency practice.

Furthermore, one commenter argues that by choosing to include 

synthetic area sources in the MACT floor analysis, the EPA is 

providing a strong disincentive for facilities to voluntarily 

reduce emissions to area source levels through enforceable 

permit limits. One commenter disputed all of the EPA’s arguments 

for including synthetic area sources in the MACT floor: 

(1) the commenter noted that EPA stated that Congress did 

not expressly exclude synthetic area sources from MACT floor 

determinations. The commenter argued that Congress did not need 

to expressly exclude these sources because the sources were 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 148 of 511

already excluded because they are not part of the major source 

category. 

(2) the commenter further noted that the EPA has previously 

asserted that the definition of a major source, specifically the 

reference to a source’s potential to emit considering controls 

allows the interpretation that a source’s potential to emit 

before and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic minor 

sources may be considered within the meaning of the major source 

definition and included in the MACT floor determinations for 

categories for major sources. The commenter argued that the 

definition of what constitutes a major source allows a source’s 

potential to emit (PTE) to be determined while “considering 

controls” means only that a source may install controls and 

render itself an area source. 

(3) the commenter referred to a floor statement of Senator 

Durenberger that EPA cited to support its theory that the agency 

must take into account the “better” performing sources in 

setting the MACT floor. The commenter argued the statement 

demonstrates that it is the better performing sources within the 

source category that must be considered, and PVC area sources 

are not a part of the PVC major source category.

One commenter added that for the EPA to ignore distinctions 

between area and major PVC sources and use the OxyVinyls Deer 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 149 of 511

Park facility in MACT floor calculations is unlawful. The 

commenter contended that the EPA incorrectly assumes the 

OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is a major source. The commenter 

stated that the facility is a “true” area source in contrast to 

the CertainTeed Mossville synthetic minor area source. The 

commenter contended that the CAA does not allow the distinction 

the EPA makes between synthetic and natural minor area sources, 

and the commenter provided detail of the regulatory history 

concerning major and area source classifications. The commenter 

provided additional detail regarding the classification of the 

OxyVinyls Deer Park and Certain Teed facilities, referencing 

previous communications with the EPA in which OxyVinyls informed 

the EPA that the OxyVinyls Deer Park facility is an area source. 

The commenter contended that the EPA cannot consider any PVC 

area sources in the major source PVC floor database because PVC 

major and PVC area sources are two separate source categories 

under the CAA. The commenter concluded by recommending the EPA 

recalculate the existing major source MACT floors, excluding the 

Deer Park and CertainTeed facilities. 

Response: In the final rule, we have developed separate 

standards for major and area sources. We conducted a MACT floor 

analysis for major sources and a GACT analysis for area sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 150 of 511

Further discussion of the GACT analysis is provided in Section 

V.H of this preamble.

We have reviewed data that OxyVinyls submitted to support 

their comment that their Deer Park, Texas facility is a “true” 

or natural area source. Based on the information provided, we 

are considering OxyVinyls Deer Park facility to be an area 

source for purposes of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are using 

data from this facility and from the CertainTeed facility in 

Mossville, Louisiana to establish area source GACT standards. 

However, we have also determined that the OxyVinyls Deer Park 

facility is a synthetic area source for the purposes of our 

analyses (without determining its status for any compliance 

purposes) because the facility routes emissions from their 

process vents to a thermal oxidizer in series with an acid-gas 

scrubber. Without these controls, we would project the vinyl 

chloride and hydrogen chloride emissions to be above the major 

source threshold. Similarly, for purposes of our analyses, we 

have determined that the CertainTeed facility is a synthetic 

area source because it uses controls, without which, their HAP 

emissions are projected to be above the major source threshold.

Even though the area source facilities would be subject to 

the area source standards, because they are synthetic area 

sources, we are including the information from both facilities 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 151 of 511

in our analyses establishing the MACT floor level of control for 

major sources. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, 

the EPA maintains that including synthetic area sources in 

calculating the MACT floor is consistent with CAA section 

112(d). Inclusion of synthetic area sources in the MACT floor 

determinations is also consistent with the Agency’s past 

practice in setting standards under section 112(d). The 

inclusion of such sources affected the MACT floor level of 

control for the PVC-only HCl and PVC-Combined vinyl chloride and 

CDD/CDF process vents emission limits. Inclusion of synthetic 

area sources in the MACT floor determinations also affected the 

MACT floor level of control for the stripped resin limit for 

vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in 

suspension and bulk resin. The vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP MACT floor emission limits for 

wastewater were also affected by inclusion of synthetic area 

sources. 

Section 112(d) of the CAA directs the EPA to establish 

emission standards for each category or subcategory of major 

sources and area sources of HAP listed for regulation pursuant 

to section 112(c) of the CAA. Each such standard must reflect a 

minimum level of control known as the MACT floor. (See CAA 

section 112(d).) However, section 112 of the CAA does not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 511

specifically address synthetic minor or synthetic area sources, 

which include those sources that emit fewer than 10 tpy of any 

HAP or fewer than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP, because they 

use some emission control device(s), pollution prevention 

techniques or other measures (collectively referred to as 

controls in this preamble) adopted under federal or state 

regulations. If not for the enforceable controls they have 

implemented, synthetic area sources would be major sources under 

section 112 of the CAA. 

We believe the better interpretation of the statutory 

language and legislative history is that synthetic area sources 

be included in MACT floor determinations. First, the plain 

language of the statute makes clear that our MACT floor 

determinations are to reflect the best sources in a category or 

subcategory. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the 

MACT floor shall not be less stringent than the emission control 

that is achieved, in practice, by the best-controlled similar 

source, as determined by the EPA. (See CAA section 112(d)(3).) 

For existing sources in a category or subcategory with fewer 

than 30 sources, the MACT floor may be less stringent than the 

floor for new sources in the same category or subcategory, but 

shall not be less stringent than the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing five 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 153 of 511

sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably 

obtain emissions information)) in the category or subcategory.

(See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) Thus, section 112(d)(3) of the 

CAA requires that MACT floors reflect what the best-controlled 

new sources and the best-performing existing sources achieve in 

practice. These phrases contain no exemptions and are not 

limited by references to sources with or without controls. 

Therefore, they suggest that all of the best-controlled or bestperforming sources should be considered in MACT floor 

determinations, regardless of whether or not such sources rely 

upon controls. 

Furthermore, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA expressly 

excludes certain sources that meet lowest achievable emission 

rate (LAER) requirements from MACT floor determinations for 

existing sources. (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).) The fact that 

Congress expressly excluded such LAER sources, but did not also 

exclude synthetic area sources suggests that no exclusion was 

intended for synthetic area sources. Indeed, nothing in the 

statute suggests that the EPA should exclude a control 

technology from its consideration of the MACT floor because the 

technology is so effective that it reduces source emissions such 

that the source is no longer a major source of HAP. (See 68 FR 

2232, January 16, 2003, stating this rationale for including 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 154 of 511

synthetic area sources in the floor determination for the final

NESHAP for municipal solid waste landfills.)

Some commenters argue that because the PVC major and area 

source categories are separate, synthetic area sources (and 

natural (i.e., non-synthetic) area sources) fall outside the 

regulated source category and should not be considered in MACT 

floor determinations. The EPA agrees that it listed PVC major 

and area source categories separately. (See 57 FR 31576, July 

16, 1992, and 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002.) However, the EPA 

disagrees that the CAA contemplates that synthetic area sources 

must be treated like true area sources and excluded from MACT 

floor determinations. Section 112(a) of the CAA defines a major 

source as: any stationary source or group of stationary sources 

located within a contiguous area and under common control that 

emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the 

aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air 

pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of 

hazardous air pollutants * * *. (See CAA section 112(a)(1).) An 

area source is defined as any stationary source of hazardous air 

pollutants that is not a major source. (See CAA section 

112(a)(1).) In the major source definition, the EPA interprets 

the reference to a source’s “potential to emit considering 

controls” as meaning that a source’s potential to emit before 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 511

and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources 

may be considered within the meaning of this definition and 

included in MACT floor determinations for categories of major 

sources. Including synthetic area sources in MACT floor 

determinations ensures that MACT floors reflect the bestperforming sources, as the CAA requires. The EPA also considered 

whether the reference to a source’s potential to emit 

considering controls in the definition of major source 

necessarily means a source’s potential to emit after controls 

have been implemented. While the EPA believes it is possible to 

read the phrase in this manner in isolation, such an 

interpretation would have the effect of excluding the bestperforming sources from MACT floor determinations and therefore 

would be contrary to the statutory mandate that the EPA set MACT 

floors based on the levels the best-controlled new sources and 

the best-performing existing sources achieve in practice. The

statutory reference to potential to emit considering controls 

should be read in a manner consistent with the other 

requirements of CAA section 112(d) to allow for the 

consideration of synthetic area sources in MACT floor 

determinations for major sources.

In addition, the legislative history suggests that 

synthetic area sources should be included in MACT floor 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 156 of 511

determinations. In a floor statement, Senator Durenberger stated 

that in implementing section 112(d)(3) of the CAA, “the [Senate] 

managers intend the Administrator to take whatever steps are 

necessary to assure that [the Administrator] has collected data 

on all of the better-performing sources within each category. 

[The Administrator] must have a data-gathering program 

sufficient to assure that [EPA] does not miss any sources that 

have superior levels of emission control.” (See Environment and 

Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research 

Service, 103d Cong., S.Prt. 103–38 (prepared for the United 

States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works), A 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 

870, November 1993, emphasis added.) This statement underscores 

that Congress intended for MACT floor determinations to reflect 

consideration of all of the sources in each category with the 

best emission controls. It would be inconsistent with Congress’s 

intent and the plain language of the CAA to exclude synthetic 

area sources—those sources with superior controls that became 

synthetic area sources by implementing such controls—from MACT 

floor determinations.

The inclusion of synthetic area sources in MACT floor 

determinations is justified because of the reasons explained 

above. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 157 of 511

Accordingly, we did not exclude synthetic area sources from 

MACT floor determinations for major sources. For more 

information concerning MACT floors for the final standards, see 

Section V.E.2 of this preamble and the memorandum, Revised 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category, in the docket.

Comment: Several commenters stated that dispersion resin 

limits should be based on measured concentration data and not 

calculated mass figures. Two commenters stated that the vinyl 

chloride limit proposed for dispersion resin was developed using 

a database that the EPA aggregated from producer submissions on 

a mass (pounds per day dry) basis and then re-divided by 

reported production volumes. The commenters listed several 

problems with the data used to convert the reported mass 

emissions to concentration limits by the EPA. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA simply use the underlying measured 

concentration data as the best and most accurate basis from 

which to develop the PVC MACT.

Response: For the final rule, we have revised the MACT 

floor-based emission limits for stripped resins. See Section 

V.E.2 of this preamble.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 158 of 511

Comment: One commenter stated they agree with the EPA’s 

procedure for determining representative method detection 

limits. Another commenter contended that the EPA cannot justify 

its floor adjustment by asserting an inability to measure 

emissions below its triple-maximum-detection limit floor. The 

commenter stated that the record includes multiple sources that

utilized lower detection limits; those sources demonstrate the 

feasibility of measuring emissions at lower levels. The 

commenter added that the agency specifies detection methods 

together with its standards; that detection method should have a 

known detection limit with a well-defined level of certainty.

The commenter proposed that the agency could, accordingly, 

calculate its floor and as a second and independent step 

establish monitoring requirements that accommodate any 

imprecision associated with measurement, or it could utilize a 

safety factor. The commenter contended that the agency cannot, 

however, simply manipulate the limits according to standards 

that appear nowhere in the CAA.

Another commenter questioned the way in which the EPA 

addresses non-detects in air emissions. The commenter stated 

that multiplying by a factor of 3 is not presented in a clear 

way to show the rationale behind this calculation. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 159 of 511

Response: As explained below, the final emissions limits 

were established using the representative method detection level 

(RDL), which is based on an average, not the highest or lowest, 

of method detection levels for the best performing units. We 

agree with the commenter’s suggestion to calculate the floor and 

then establish monitoring requirements to accommodate several 

factors such as measurement precision near the detection limit 

we argue that the 3 X RDL is also used due to the truncation of 

data at the MDL.

We agree with many of the comments related to treatment of 

data reported as detection limit values in the development of 

MACT floors and emissions limits. The probability procedures 

applied in calculating the floor or an emissions limit 

inherently and reasonably account for emissions data variability 

including measurement imprecision when the database represents 

multiple tests from multiple emissions units for which all of 

the data are measured above the method detection level. That is 

less true when the database includes emissions occurring below 

method detection capabilities regardless of how those data are 

reported. The EPA’s guidance to respondents for reporting 

pollutant emissions used to support the data collection 

specified the criteria for determining test-specific method 

detection levels. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 160 of 511

Those criteria ensure that there is only about a 1-percent 

probability of an error in deciding that the pollutant measured 

at the method detection level is present when, in fact, it was 

absent. (See Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): 

Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements; 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Research Committee on 

Industrial and Municipal Waste, February 2001.) Such a 

probability is also called a false positive or the alpha, Type 

I, error. This means, specifically, that for a normally 

distributed set of measurement data, 99 out of 100 single 

measurements will fall within ±2.54 σ of the true concentration. 

The anticipated range for the average of repeated measurements 

comes progressively closer to the true concentration. More 

precisely, the anticipated range varies inversely with the 

square root of the number of measurements. Thus, if σ is the 

standard deviation of anticipated single measurements, the 

anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future triplicate 

measurements will fall within ± 2.54 σ/√3 of the true 

concentration. This relationship translates to an expected 

measurement imprecision for an emissions value occurring at or 

near the method detection level of about 40 to 50 percent. 

By assuming a similar distribution of measurements across a 

range of values and increasing the mean value to a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 161 of 511

representative higher value (e.g., 3 times MDL), we can estimate 

measurement imprecision at other levels. For an assumed 3 times 

the MDL, the estimated measurement imprecision for a 3-test-run 

average value would be on the order 10 to 20 percent. This is 

about the same measurement imprecision as found for Methods 23 

and 29 indicated in the ASME Precision of Manual Stack Emissions 

Measurements for the sample volumes prescribed in the final rule 

(e.g., 4 to 6 dscm) for multiple tests. 

Analytical laboratories often report a value above the 

method detection limit that represents the laboratory’s 

perceived confidence in the quality of the value. This 

arbitrarily adjusted value is expressed differently by various 

laboratories and is called limit of quantitation (LOQ), 

practical quantitation limit (PQL), or reporting limit (RL). In 

many cases, the LOQ, PQL or RL is simply a multiplication of the 

method detection limit. Multipliers range from 3 to 10. Because 

these values reflect individual laboratories’ perceived 

confidence, and, therefore, could be viewed as arbitrary, we 

decline to adopt the LOQ, PQL, or RL because such approaches in 

our view would inappropriately inflate the MACT floor standards. 

Our alternative to those inconsistent approaches is discussed 

below.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 162 of 511

Consistent with findings expressed in reports of emissions 

measurement imprecision and the practices of analytical 

laboratories, we believe that using a measurement value of 3 

times a method’s detection limit established in a manner that 

assures 99 percent confidence of a measurement above zero will 

produce a representative method reporting limit suitable for 

establishing regulatory floor values. 

On the other hand, we agree with commenters that an 

emissions limit determined from a small subset of data or data 

from a single source may be significantly different than the 

actual method detection levels achieved by the best-performing 

units in practice. This fact, combined with the low levels of 

emissions measured from many of the best-performing units, led 

the EPA to review and revise the procedure intended to account 

for the contribution of measurement imprecision to data 

variability in establishing effective emissions limits. In 

response to the comments and internal concerns about the quality 

of measurements at very low emissions limits especially for new 

sources, we revised the procedure for identifying an RDL

The revised procedure for determining an RDL starts with 

identifying all of the available reported pollutant specific 

method detection levels for the best-performing units regardless 

of any subcategory (e.g., existing or new, fuel type, etc.). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 163 of 511

From that combined pool of data, we calculate the arithmetic 

mean value. By limiting the data set to those tests used to 

establish the floor or emissions limit (i.e., best performers), 

we believe that the result is representative of the bestperforming testing companies and laboratories using the most 

sensitive analytical procedures. We believe that the outcome 

should minimize the effect of a test(s) with an inordinately 

high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too 

small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive, or 

the procedure for determining the minimum value for reporting 

was other than the detection level). We then call the resulting 

mean of the method detection levels the RDL as characteristic of 

accepted source emissions measurement performance. 

The second step in the process is to calculate 3 times the 

RDL to compare with the calculated floor or emissions limit. 

This step is similar to what we have used before including for 

the Portland cement MACT determination. We use the 

multiplication factor of 3 to reduce the imprecision of the 

analytical method until the imprecision in the field sampling 

reflects the relative method precision as estimated by the ASME

ReMAP study. That study indicates that such relative imprecision

remains a constant 10 to 20 percent, over the range of the 

method. For assessing the calculated floor results relative to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 164 of 511

measurement method capabilities, if 3 times the RDL were less 

than the calculated floor or emissions limit (e.g., calculated 

from the UPL), we would conclude that measurement variability 

was adequately addressed. The calculated floor or emissions 

limit would need no adjustment. If, on the other hand, the value 

equal to 3 times the RDL were greater than the UPL, we would 

conclude that the calculated floor or emissions limit does not 

account entirely for measurement variability. Where such was the 

case, we substituted the value equal to 3 times the RDL for the 

calculated floor or emissions limit, which results in a 

concentration where the method would produce measurement 

accuracy on the order of 10 to 20 percent, which is similar to 

other EPA test methods and the results found in the ASME ReMAP 

study. 

We determined the RDL for each pollutant using data from 

tests of all the best performers for all of the final regulatory 

subcategories (i.e., pooled test data). We applied the same 

pollutant-specific RDL and emissions limit adjustment procedure 

to all subcategories for which we established emissions limits. 

We believe that emissions limits adjusted in this manner, which

ensures that measurement variability is adequately addressed 

relative to compliance determinations, is a better procedure 

than the one applied at proposal, which was based on more 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 165 of 511

limited data. We also believe that the currently available 

emissions testing procedures and technologies provide the 

measurement certainty sufficient for sources to demonstrate 

compliance at the levels of the revised emissions limits. 

As for the commenter’s suggestion that the EPA utilize a 

safety factor, the commenter provided no additional explanation 

of what a safety factor is, how it should be calculated and 

used, and no additional information to calculate such a factor. 

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has set 

impossibly low limits for CDD/CDF, given the detection limits 

for EPA Method 23. Several commenters contended that, 

considering the body of available evidence on this subject, the 

EPA should not set limits below 0.1 nanograms (ng) toxic 

equivalent per dry standard cubic meter (TEQ/dscm) for CDD/CDF. 

Several commenters asserted that the CDD/CDF emission level of 

0.023 ng/dscm proposed for PVC facilities is below levels that 

can be accurately measured. 

Several commenters stated the EPA should impose work 

practice standards rather than emission limits to control 

CDD/CDF emissions or adjust the CDD/CDF standard to account for 

measurement uncertainty. One commenter stated that the EPA’s 

decision to propose such conservative requirements for CDD/CDF

testing is particularly surprising and unjustified in light of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 166 of 511

the EPA’s own estimates of the very low overall reduction of 

CDD/CDF emissions that would be achieved by this rule. The 

commenter also noted that the EPA recognized the CDD/CDF dataset 

contains nearly 50-percent “non-detect” data. The commenter 

added that previous MACT rulemaking efforts for other comparable 

subparts, including the MACT rule for Hazardous Waste Combustors 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE) or the Industrial Boiler and 

Process Heater MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD), typically 

allow for either a work practice standard or for one-time 

CDD/CDF emissions testing of units subject to the rule. In 

contrast, the commenter asserted that the EPA has not proposed 

to allow for work practice standards and other emission 

standards (e.g., control of temperature in the air pollution 

control system and emission standards for vinyl chloride and 

hydrogen chloride) to control CDD/CDF emissions in the PVC MACT 

rule and instead, proposes to establish CDD/CDF emission 

standards at or below the detection capabilities of EPA Method 

23 along with expensive testing for CDD/CDF annually. The 

commenter further stated that because PVC-only plants have 

similar CDD/CDF emissions, PVC-only plants should not be subject 

to numerical limits for CDD/CDF emissions.

One commenter stated that section 112(h) of the CAA 

provides that "if it is not feasible in the judgment of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 167 of 511

Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard...the 

Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, 

equipment, work practice, or operational standard" and also 

cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 

The commenter stated that the EPA must first make a 

determination that "the application of measurement methodology 

to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations," not that it lacks 

emissions data to set a limit. The commenter added they believe 

that PVC facilities face precisely the type of technological 

constraints in measuring for CDD/CDF that require the use of 

work practice standards.

Response: The commenters are correct that, at proposal, 50 

percent of the CDD/CDF dataset was at non-detect levels. 

However, with the addition of the EDC/VCM information submitted 

by industry in response to the CAA section 114 request for the 

EDC/VCM industry, that number has decreased to 38 percent. In 

comparison, 10 of the boiler NESHAP subcategories in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart DDDDD contained CDD/CDF datasets with non-detect 

values greater than 80 percent of the data, with most having 

non-detects greater than 90 percent of the data. As a result,

the EPA determined that a work practice standard would be 

appropriate for the major source boiler NESHAP. Likewise, in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 168 of 511

final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards signed by the 

Administrator on December 16, 2011, the EPA established work 

practice standards for CDD/CDF because the significant majority 

of data from all the generating units were below the detection 

levels of the EPA test methods. Such is not the case for the PVC 

data. Given the significantly greater level of detected 

information for PVC process vents it is apparent that CDD/CDF

can be detected in PVC process vent streams. Therefore, we 

maintain that numerical emission limits are appropriate rather 

than work practices to control CDD/CDF emissions from PVCPU 

process vents. As discussed previously, the emission limits for 

CDD/CDF have been revised, based on new data collected from 

EDC/VCM manufacturers and new subcategories We reviewed much 

larger data sets of Method 23 CDD/CDF test data and determined 

that representative detection levels equal to 0.018 ng/dscm are 

achievable for sample volumes less than or equal to 6 dscm. As a 

result, the final rule requires a CDD/CDF TEQ emission limit of 

0.038 ng/dscm for PVC-only process vents at existing and new 

sources, 0.051 ng/dscm for PVC-combined process vents at 

existing sources, and 0.034 ng/dscm for PVC-combined process 

vents at new sources. We estimate that 10 out of 13 sources for 

which we have data are able to meet the emission limits without 

additional control. We are not prescribing a particular control 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 169 of 511

technology for the remaining facilities. Affected sources may 

use any control technique to meet the CDD/CDF limits. We believe 

sources can use techniques such as enhanced vapor recovery prior 

to combustion as a means to reduce chlorinated compounds 

resulting in less chlorine available to form CDD/CDF. For the 

impacts estimate, we estimated the cost for enhanced vapor 

recovery (e.g. condensers) prior to combustion. Cost and 

emission reductions estimation are documented in the memorandum, 

Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the 

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category

F. Emission Source Requirements

Comment: One commenter raised several issues with the 

proposed definition of process vent. First, the commenter argued 

that the definition of process vent is too broad and 

incorporates emission points that are already regulated under 

other sections of the rule. Specifically, the commenters

contended that unloading and loading lines, samples, wastewater 

collection and treatment systems and “other process components 

prior to the resin stripper” should be removed from the 

definition of process vent because including them in the process 

vent definition is in conflict with the proposed definitions of 

1. Process Vents
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 170 of 511

batch and continuous process vents. The commenter contended that 

wastewater collection and treatment systems should be excluded 

because they would already be regulated under the wastewater 

provisions specified in 40 CFR 63.11965 and 40 CFR 63.11970 of

the proposed rule. In the case of “other process components 

prior to the resin stripper,” the commenter contended that this 

is too broad a term, and at a minimum, the EPA should clarify 

what is meant by this term in the context of the process vent 

definition. Instead of the current proposed definition, the 

commenter suggested the following definition for process vent: 

“Process vent means batch process vent or continuous process 

vent.” The commenter also proposed that the definitions of batch 

and continuous process vents should provide an exclusion for 

gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system. The commenter 

stated that because gaseous streams have a useful purpose and 

most other 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP exclude gaseous streams from 

the definition of a process vent, they should not be considered 

process vents in this rule.

Response: In the final rule, we have revised the definition

of process vent, continuous process vent and batch process vent 

to provide additional clarification, and we have added a 

definition for miscellaneous vent. These revisions also provide 

additional consistency with the changes made to the affected 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 171 of 511

source definition, the definition of PVCPU and the new 

definitions for PVC-only process vent and PVC-combined process 

vent. See Section V.I of this preamble for a complete discussion 

of the revised and added definitions.

Comment: Several commenters contended that the proposed 

requirement to have double mechanical seals and double outboard 

seals on rotating equipment is a beyond-the-floor control option 

and not a representation of the current control level within the 

industry. The commenters stated that there are no PVCPU that 

exclusively utilize double mechanical seals throughout the 

PVCPU, but instead these technologies are used in limited areas 

of the PVC production process and different technologies are 

used in other areas. The commenters added that because the 

proposed requirements are actually beyond-the-floor options, the 

revised rule should allow subject facilities the option to 

comply with all the provisions of the promulgated 40 CFR part 

63, subpart UU MACT standard. The commenters also contended that 

installation of further controls will constitute a burden on 

facilities and will provide minimal benefits in the form of 

potential HAP emission reductions. One commenter pointed out 

that proposed 40 CFR 63.11915(b)(1) and (2) would require pump 

seal installations that are optional under 40 CFR 63.1026(e) of

2. Equipment leaks
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 172 of 511

subpart UU. Likewise, they argued, proposed 40 CFR 

63.11915(b)(5) would require agitator seal installations that 

are optional under 40 CFR 63.1028(e) of subpart UU. The

commenter argued that the EPA should revise the pump and 

agitator seal section to be consistent with subpart UU.

Response: The proposed requirement that reciprocating 

pumps, reciprocating and rotating compressors and agitators be 

equipped with double seals, or equivalent, was in error. In the 

final rules, we have adopted the MACT floor level of control for 

equipment leaks for all components (which is compliance with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UU), which gives affected sources the 

option of installing double seals, or equivalent, or complying 

with the leak detection and repair requirements of the equipment 

leak standards.

Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed 

requirements for PRD that any release is an automatic violation. 

The commenters contended that this requires a costly retrofit 

with little additional environmental benefit. Commenters

contended that this provision is in contradiction to a longstanding recognition by the EPA that some PRD discharges are 

necessary; for example, they stated the current rule recognizes 

that proper operation of PRD (including using emergency relief 

valve discharges, currently exempted) is a necessary component 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 173 of 511

of safe and responsible plant operation. One commenter 

recommended that the EPA revise the proposed language at 

§63.11915(c) to read “[a]ny release to the atmosphere from a 

pressure relief device in HAP service, except for an emergency 

relief discharge...constitutes a violation of this rule.” 

Several commenters added that in the affirmative defense 

requirements, EPA acknowledges safety-related relief valve 

discharges. Commenters pointed out that the affirmative defense 

criteria state in 40 CFR 63.11895(a): “(4) If the excess

emissions resulted from a bypass of control device components or 

a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of 

life, personal injury, or severe property damage;...(6) All 

emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation, 

if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices.” In addition, some commenters 

contended the low reportable quantity thresholds and Toxic 

Release Inventory reporting are adequate incentives for 

facilities to minimize discharge events, thus, allowing for 

affirmative defense is appropriate. The commenters stated other 

MACT standards like the HON and the CAR also make allowances in 

the closed vent system bypass rules that account for safetyrelated pressure valve releases, and thus that in order to avoid 

unsafe conditions and prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 174 of 511

severe property damage, the EPA should allow facilities to claim 

an affirmative defense for safety-related releases.

Response:

Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large 

quantities of HAP. In that case, it is important to identify and 

PRD releases are already prohibited at all PVC 

facilities by the part 61 NESHAP, except when ducted to a 

control device meeting the 10 ppm limit that applies to process 

vents or in an emergency relief discharge (40 CFR 61.65(a)). In 

this CAA section 112(d) NESHAP rulemaking, which builds upon the 

part 61 NESHAP, we have developed emission standards that are 

continuous and consistent with Sierra Club v EPA. Commenters do 

not have any legal basis for failing to apply an emission 

standard to PRD releases. We believe that PRD releases at PVC 

facilities are caused by malfunctions or other occurrences. 

However, such circumstances do not justify commenters’

suggestion that no standard applies to such releases. Further, 

the proposed affirmative defense would be available for PRD 

releases caused by malfunctions. Therefore, we are not exempting

emergency PRD releases in the final rule. See Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore, the final rule 

provides that a PRD release, unless ducted to a control device 

meeting the process vent limits, is a violation of the emission 

standard.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 175 of 511

control any releases in a timely manner. Therefore, we are 

requiring you to install electronic indicators on each PRD that 

would be able to identify and record the time and duration of 

each pressure release. In addition to ensuring that significant 

releases are addressed, these requirements will also alert 

operators to any operational problems with the PRD seal that 

could be resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. Furthermore, 

if danger is imminent and a PRD releases to the atmosphere, 

facilities have the ability to assert an affirmative defense.

As discussed in the proposed rule, we are including an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits. See 40 CFR 63.12005 of the proposed rule

(defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also 

are requiring that other regulatory provisions to specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative 

defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 

63.11895 of the proposed rule. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) The criteria

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 176 of 511

event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the 

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions 

“[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure 

of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps 

are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule and to

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible steps 

were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment and human health....” In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the 

respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 177 of 511

may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see 

also 40 CFR 22.77).

Comment: Several commenters argued that multiple systems 

and procedures already exist at facilities to detect and remedy 

releases from PRD and, thus, automatic release indicators are 

redundant. These commenters stated retrofitting existing PRD 

with release indicators would be costly, and installation of 

these devices will not result in any emission reduction because

they are indicators only. Commenters contended that the PVC 

industry is currently subject to both environmental and safety 

standards that adequately address concerns with the detection of 

emissions from relief devices, such as 40 CFR part 61, subpart V 

requirements in 40 CFR 61.242-4. Two commenters pointed out that 

most PVC plants typically have rupture discs installed below 

relief valves that discharge to the atmosphere, and monitor the 

space between the rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on a 

routine basis using a local pressure indicator and log this 

information for safety purposes. One commenter contended that 

the EPA should at least perform a cost-benefit analysis before 

finalizing this requirement. Several commenters contended that 

given the cost, multiple systems currently in-place, and the 

lack of any emissions reductions, the EPA should delete the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 178 of 511

requirement for release indicators at proposed 40 CFR 

63.11915(c).

Response: We acknowledge, based on information from the 

commenters, that the PVC industry typically installs area 

monitors in addition to rupture discs in series with relief 

valves. We also acknowledge other commenters' statements that 

multiple systems and procedures exist to detect and remedy 

releases from PRD, although they did not identify specific 

systems or procedures for the EPA to consider. However, the 

commenters did not suggest that the EPA adopt any type of 

monitoring or recordkeeping requirement for PRD discharges, and 

commenters' statements taken as a whole do not support a 

conclusion that all PVC facilities currently install and use 

effective means to detect and record PRD discharges for all of 

their PRD.

Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large 

quantities of HAP, and a large number of these releases that may 

occur may not be identified and controlled in a timely manner, 

and may be due to repeat problems that have not been corrected.

In the final rule, PRD are required to be equipped with 

indicators to identify and record the time and duration of each 

pressure release. The requirement to install indicators to 

identify and record the time and duration of each pressure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 179 of 511

release is a compliance requirement to ensure the PRD 

requirements in the final rule are met. They help ensure that 

any PRD discharge, i.e., a release of uncontrolled HAP 

emissions, is immediately known to the source operator and 

recorded for future consideration by the facility or regulatory 

authority, so that remedial or preventative action can be taken 

to minimize or avoid PRD discharges in the future. The cost of 

the electronic indicators is incorporated into the costs of the 

final rule. Our cost estimates are based on the best information 

available to the EPA. While commenters indicated the EPA costs 

were underestimated, they did not provide sufficient information 

to revise our estimates.

Additional discussion on our decisions regarding PRD is 

found in the response to the previous comment.

3. Resin

Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.11960(d)(2) and 

(3) of the proposed rule states that: “If an operating limit is 

a range, then you must operate the stripper as close as possible 

to the maximum or minimum operating limit for the resin 

stripper, whichever results in higher emissions (i.e., lower 

emission reduction).” The commenter added that the purpose of an 

operating range is to allow for normal variability and 

fluctuation inherent in the process, and by requiring that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 180 of 511

compliance measurements be performed at operating conditions 

resulting in the highest emissions, the agency is artificially 

increasing both the chance that a single compliance measurement 

would be out of compliance, as well as the overall emissions 

loading used to evaluate the environmental performance of the 

unit. The commenter submitted that such operating limits applied 

to resin strippers are inappropriate and that where conditions 

exist that operating limits are appropriate, proper measurement 

protocol would be to require sampling within the normal 

operating ranges, not at a particular point within.

Response:

In our review of the resin sampling data in conjunction 

with the establishment of additional subcategories for stripped 

resins (see discussion above), we recognize that while resin 

subcategories are established at the type of resin, there are a 

multitude of resin grades produced by facilities that fall under 

a general resin type. Some facilities may produce on the order 

of hundreds of different grades for any one particular resin 

type. For the same reasons outlined as to why we are 

In the final rule, for stripped resins as well as 

for process wastewater, we are no longer requiring sources to 

comply with operating limits and conduct continuous parametric 

monitoring. The requirements to conduct resin sampling are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the stripped resin limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 181 of 511

establishing additional subcategories for stripped resins in the 

final rule, we recognize that there are also differences in the 

formulations, recipes, and processing conditions in the 

polymerization reactors and/or resin stripper for different 

resin grades of the same resin type. The establishment of resin 

subcategories at the grade level would be impractical because 

an inordinate number of subcategories would have to be 

established for hundreds, if not thousands, of different grades 

of resin. As such, the MACT limits established at the level of 

resin type will account for the inherent variability in not only 

the formulation and recipes of the different resin grades, but 

also the variation that must exist in the polymerization and 

stripping of different resin grades in order to meet established 

resin specifications and end-user requirements. The final rule 

requires that compliance with the stripped resin limits be 

demonstrated based on a 24-hour arithmetic average of samples 

taken every 3 hours for continuous strippers or at the end of 

each batch for batch strippers. The frequency of resin sampling 

that is required under the final rule is sufficient to ensure 

that continuous and batch stripping operations are in continuous 

compliance with the stripped resin limits.

Therefore, requiring facilities to establish parameters on 

their stripping operations that must be monitored and maintained 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 182 of 511

to ensure continuous compliance is not practical considering the 

multitude of operating limits and ranges that would need to be 

established to cover the production of numerous grades of resin. 

We further recognize that given the establishment of resin 

limits at the outlet of the resin strippers, we can allow 

flexibility in the operation of the strippers while ensuring 

that the resin limits are being met as the resin exits the 

stripper. Therefore, we have removed all requirements for 

continuous parametric monitoring of resin strippers from the 

final rule.

Comment: One commenter contended that a work practice 

standard is needed for startup periods for the resin slurry 

strippers. The commenter does not normally take samples for 

vinyl chloride within 2 hours of a PVC resin slurry stripper 

startup, but provided a table of information in their comment 

letter on four investigations undertaken on different days at 

different plants. The commenter stated that the first three 

products tested were relatively easy-to-strip grades, while the 

fourth product was a relatively hard-to-strip pipe-grade resin. 

The commenter stated that a relatively short startup vinyl 

chloride spike is present for easy-to-strip resins, but that for 

the higher volume pipe grade resin with lower porosity (hard-tostrip), the startup spike lasted at least 1 hour and, possibly,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 183 of 511

2 hours. The commenter contended that, based on the variability 

seen in the slurry stripper startups, it is not possible to set 

a single numerical limit for startup conditions. Therefore, the 

commenter requested that the EPA establish a work practice 

allowing a 2-hour time period following startup when no vinyl 

chloride samples shall be used for compliance purposes.

Response: The resin limits apply at all times including 

during periods of normal operation and during periods or startup 

and shutdown. The variability incorporated into the stripped 

resin limit calculation for each resin type will sufficiently 

allow for periods of concentration spiking during periods of 

startup. Compliance with the stripped resin limits is based on a 

24-hour arithmetic average of samples taken every 8 hours for 

continuous strippers or at the end of each batch for batch 

strippers. For a continuous stripper, samples must be taken 

every 8 hours or for each grade, whichever is more frequent. We 

believe the 24 hour averaging time and 8 hour sampling frequency 

will allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the stripped 

resin limits. Finally, section 112(h) of the CAA authorizes the

EPA to set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission 

limits only where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

numerical emission standard. This statutory threshold is further 

defined to mean that HAP cannot be emitted “through a conveyance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 184 of 511

designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant” or 

“the application of measurement methodology to a particular 

class of sources is not practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations.” The commenter did not provide any 

information to satisfy this statutory prerequisite to support 

the application of work practice standards to startup periods 

for resin strippers. Therefore, we disagree that a work practice 

should be established in lieu of a numerical emission limit for 

resin strippers during periods of startup.

4. Wastewater

Comment: Several commenters contended that owner/operators 

should be exempt from the proposed initial and continuous vinyl 

chloride and HAP sampling requirements if they can document, 

through process knowledge or historical sampling data, that no 

HAP are present in the wastewater stream. The commenters 

proposed that all documentation would be available to an 

inspector. Commenters contended that the HON at 40 CFR 63.144(b) 

and 63.144(c) (subpart G) allows for the use of sampling, bench 

scale data and/or process knowledge to determine concentration 

and flow rate of a wastewater stream.

Response: In the final rule, we are requiring that for any 

process wastewater streams that are not being treated prior to 

being discharged from the PVCPU, facilities must sample those 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 185 of 511

streams and determine if treatment is required to meet the 

process wastewater limits for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP. If after the initial sampling, treatment 

is not required to meet the limits, then those streams must only 

be retested annually or when a process change is made. The final 

rule contains limits based on the MACT floor for total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP. The total HAP concentration and flow rate 

cutoffs were included as a beyond-the-floor option at proposal 

in an effort to make the wastewater requirements consistent with 

other chemical sector rules, because the option was costeffective. Based on our evaluation of the total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP limits, we determined that the 1,000 ppmw

threshold for total organic HAP, above which facilities would 

have been required to comply with the HON wastewater provisions, 

was not appropriate for the final rule as all streams must meet 

a limit for vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP, that when combined (i.e., 116.8 ppmw for existing sources 

and 0.30 ppmw for new sources) is much lower than the previously 

proposed 1,000 ppmw threshold. We, therefore, removed the total 

HAP flow rate cutoff and concentration cutoff, and flow rate 

determination requirements from the final rule. Annual resampling and testing of untreated streams is not overly 

burdensome and provides more reliable results than engineering 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 186 of 511

estimates or process knowledge on which to determine whether at 

some point in the future, an untreated stream must be treated to 

meet applicable limits.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the EPA should provide 

exemptions for certain safety-related streams. The commenters 

contended that certain events may occur at a PVCPU that require 

the release and subsequent discharge of water, such as a fire or 

the use of eye wash stations and safety shower, and these 

activities have little to no chance of emitting HAP. The 

commenters stated that safety-related streams are identified in 

HON at 63.100(f)(1) through (11). In the absence of such 

exemptions, the commenters concluded that facility employees 

will be confused or hesitant because of a compliance dilemma at 

the worst possible time.

Several commenters asked for clarification about which inprocess wastewater streams require control and treatment. 

Several commenters contended that maintenance wastewater streams 

should be regulated independently of process wastewater. The 

commenters stated that the capture of maintenance wastewater 

emissions is infeasible and thus warrants use of a work practice 

standard. The commenters stated that there are no known 

practical and effective methods for collecting and controlling 

fugitive emissions from a wastewater stream, which can vary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 187 of 511

considerably in HAP concentration and flow rate. Several 

commenters argued that maintenance wastewater should not have a 

prescribed limit, but should have work practices to remove 

residuals prior to generation. A commenter stated that 

maintenance activities are non-routine, highly variable 

activities that require the purging, clearing and cleaning of 

equipment in preparation for safe handling by personnel. Some 

commenters added that maintenance wastewaters include dilute 

concentrations of HAP because industry takes efforts to remove 

residual HAP before equipment is flushed. The commenters 

concluded that quantifying a concentration to establish 

compliance with a limit would be extremely difficult if not 

impossible, because the “acceptable” level would be based on the 

specific circumstances involved. The commenters added that other 

MACT standards like the HON and MON provide a separate 

management option for maintenance or turnaround wastewater. 

The commenters contended that streams should be clearly 

defined by the point of determination (POD) and not the proposed 

point of generation (POG). The commenters added that the POG 

concept is not defined or explained within either the VCM NESHAP 

or the proposed PVC MACT. Other MACT standards related to 

chemical process industries provide for sampling at the POD and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 188 of 511

have exemptions in the rule related to the definition of 

wastewater. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that it is not

feasible to collect wastewater resulting from maintenance 

activities at PVC facilities such that it could be contained and 

routed to a wastewater treatment system. We disagree that 

maintenance wastewater generation activities are non-routine. We 

maintain that maintenance activities at PVC facilities are 

routine, but those activities result in the generation of 

wastewater in such a manner that it cannot be collected, 

enclosed, and routed to a wastewater treatment system or 

otherwise managed in a controlled or enclosed system as process 

wastewater can. PVC facilities reported a variety of different 

work practices used for maintenance wastewater, but did not 

provide sufficient description or information necessary to 

determine the effectiveness of any one work practice alone or 

relative to other work practices. Furthermore, these streams can 

vary considerably in HAP concentration. Therefore, it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for 

maintenance wastewater and maintenance wastewater streams should 

be regulated separately from process wastewater. In the final 

rule, maintenance wastewater is not subject to the same 

requirements as process wastewater but instead is subject to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 189 of 511

work practice standards. We are incorporating into the final 

rule the maintenance wastewater work practice requirements used 

in other EPA standards, such as the HON. These work practice 

standards include preparing a description of maintenance 

procedures for management of wastewater generated from the 

emptying and purging of equipment in the process during 

temporary shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair and 

during periods which are not shutdowns. As in the HON, 

facilities can effectively implement these work practices to 

prevent or mitigate the emissions of HAP from wastewater 

generated during maintenance activities. We also agree that 

certain safety related activities that may generate a wastewater 

stream not be subject to the requirements for process 

wastewater. Therefore, we have added separate requirements in 

the final rule for maintenance wastewater streams. Furthermore, 

we have clarified that certain safety-related streams are not 

considered wastewater. These two revisions in the final rule are 

consistent with wastewater provisions in other MACT standards, 

such as the HON and MON. We have also removed all terminology 

related to “point of generation” and “point of determination.” 

These terms created confusion for determining compliance with 

the standards. The final rule includes simplified language 

regarding where process wastewater streams must be tested to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 190 of 511

determine if treatment is required to meet the process 

wastewater limits. In the final rule, we are requiring that 

wastewater be measured immediately as it leaves a piece of 

process equipment and before being mixed with any other process 

wastewater stream. We have also clarified that the limits must 

be met before the process wastewater stream is discharged from 

the PVCPU.

5. Heat exchange systems

Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed heat 

exchange systems monitoring methods are more restrictive than 

other 40 CFR part 63 NESHAPs. The commenters suggested that the

EPA broaden proposed leak testing and compliance requirements 

for cooling water supply (in closed-loop recirculation systems) 

and required heat exchange systems. The commenters identified 

several alternate compliance methods: (1) Method 107, which 

focuses on vinyl chloride, not HAP, be included as a compliance 

option. Commenters contended that Method 107, which is conducted 

on site, allows for fast results (24 hours while Method 8021B 

tests can take a week) and quicker repairs to any leaking 

exchange systems; (2) Method 8260B, which commenters said should 

replace Method 8021B. Commenters stated that Method 8260B has a 

more comprehensive target chemical list; test laboratories no 

longer have the equipment or personnel capable of performing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 191 of 511

Method 8021B; and Method 8021B is not incorporated by reference 

in 40 CFR 63.14 as is the Modified El Paso Method.

Response: The leak action level for heat exchange systems 

is not an independent limit on emissions, but rather is used as 

an indicator that there may be a leaking component and as a 

trigger level to take further action to remedy the leak. As

discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the leak action 

level and associated repair requirements for heat exchange 

systems are work practice standards under section 112(h) of the 

CAA and not numerical emission limits, similar to requirements 

applicable to equipment leaks. The proposed leak action levels 

and monitoring frequencies were established based on the 

information provided to us in responses to our August 21, 2009,

CAA section 114 information collection request of the PVC 

industry and subsequent requests by us of the industry 

requesting clarification on heat exchange system monitoring 

practices used in the industry.

At proposal, we required measurement of total strippable 

VOC for detecting leaks of HAP into the cooling water, which are 

ultimately emitted downstream. Based on comments received, we 

have added an option for facilities to monitor their heat 

exchange systems using EPA Method 107, for vinyl chloride to 

monitor for leaks of total strippable VOC into cooling water. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 192 of 511

Vinyl chloride is the primary raw material in the manufacture of 

PVC and is present in all process streams. Therefore, if either 

total strippable VOC or vinyl chloride leaks are detected, 

repair of the leaks will control the leaks for all HAP. The 

process streams are cooled by cooling water in non-contact heat 

exchangers. If there is a leak of a process stream into the 

cooling water, for example, through a broken heat exchanger tube 

bundle, vinyl chloride concentrations would increase in the 

cooling water. A leaking process stream that contains other HAP 

in addition to vinyl chloride would also leak those other HAP 

into the cooling water. In a recirculating heat exchange system 

that contains a cooling tower, the cooling water is exposed to 

the atmosphere at the cooling tower. It is sufficient to 

establish a leak action level for heat exchange systems at PVC 

facilities based on a level of vinyl chloride that, if detected 

in the cooling water, would indicate a leak of the process 

stream and all HAP contained in that process stream into the 

system. Therefore, we determined that for this industry, vinyl 

chloride is also an appropriate indicator to determine if there 

is a leak in a heat exchange system. Furthermore, EPA Method 107 

is an established method for the analysis of vinyl chloride in 

wastewater samples.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 193 of 511

Our approach at proposal to determining a MACT floor for 

heat exchange systems was to calculate the average (arithmetic 

mean) leak action level from the five reported lowest leak 

action levels to determine the floor for existing sources, and 

the single lowest leak action level to determine the floor for 

new sources. Similarly, we looked at the range of monitoring 

frequencies and selected the median frequency from nine heat 

exchange systems for existing sources and the most frequent 

monitoring period for new sources. We have revised the leak 

action level at the MACT floor for existing sources based on the 

median leak action level for total strippable VOC from the top 

five lowest leak action levels reported. Similar to our approach 

to determining the MACT floor for equipment leaks, it is 

appropriate to evaluate the median of leak action levels instead 

of calculating the arithmetic mean. We determined that the leak 

action level for total strippable VOC for the existing source 

MACT floor is 50 ppbw. The lowest leak action level reported was 

also 50 ppbw and represents the revised MACT floor leak action 

level for new sources. Therefore, in the final rule, the leak 

action level for total strippable VOC in cooling water is 50 

ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both existing and new sources. 

The methods used by facilities to monitor for VOC include the 

Modified El Paso Method and EPA Method 624. In the final rule, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 194 of 511

we have revised the cooling water monitoring method from Method 

8021B to EPA Method 624, but we have not changed the option to 

monitor using the Modified El Paso Method.

To develop a leak action level for vinyl chloride, we 

looked at the leak action levels and monitoring frequencies

reported by facilities that perform vinyl chloride monitoring 

using EPA Method 107. We determined a vinyl chloride leak action 

level based on the median leak action level reported by 

facilities that monitor for vinyl chloride. Those leak action 

levels range from 50 ppbw to 5,000 ppbw with monitoring 

frequencies between monthly and quarterly. To determine the MACT 

floor level of control, we conducted an analysis similar to the 

analysis conducted for equipment leaks; an analogous emission 

source that is fugitive in nature where control is a work 

practice and not an emission limit. The existing source MACT 

floor level of control for equipment leaks was calculated using 

the average (median) level of control of work practices at the 

best-performing five sources. We determined that the median leak 

action level for heat exchange systems was 50 ppbw. The MACT 

floor analysis results in a leak action level for vinyl chloride 

for existing sources of 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring. The 

lowest leak action level reported was also 50 ppbw and 

represents the revised MACT floor for new sources. Therefore, in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 195 of 511

the final rule, the leak action level for total strippable VOC 

in cooling water is 50 ppbw with monthly monitoring, for both 

existing and new sources. This analysis is documented in the 

memorandum Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) 

Production Source Category and is available in the docket.

Comment: One commenter stated that in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the EPA has indicated that for "other emission 

sources," requirements from part 61 NESHAP constituted the MACT 

floor level of control and that, in turn, was used to set the 

proposed limits, which requires complying with a vinyl chloride 

percent reduction. However, the commenter added, the rule 

requires sources to comply with a total HAP percent reduction, 

while the preamble only requires sources to comply with a vinyl 

chloride percent reduction. The commenter contended that sources

have been using a method for sampling and detecting vinyl 

chloride for years, and measuring total HAP will introduce an 

additional layer of complexity to the compliance requirement.

The commenter requested that the EPA review the rule language 

and make it consistent with the preamble language by replacing 

total HAP with vinyl chloride.

6. Other Emission Sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 196 of 511

Response: In the final rule, as in the proposed rule, we 

are requiring work practices that require venting the emissions 

from process components and equipment through a closed vent 

system to a control device prior to opening to minimize 

emissions. This is typically achieved by sweeping the component 

or equipment several times with nitrogen to reduce the 

concentration of HAP in the vapor space of the component or 

equipment. These work practices will reduce emissions of all HAP 

present in the component or equipment prior to opening. In the 

final rule we are setting standards for this emission source 

based on vinyl chloride because the Part 61 NESHAP, which 

constitutes the MACT floor level of control for reactor and 

equipment openings, requires work practices to specifically 

control vinyl chloride emissions. It is appropriate to continue 

to set the standards based on vinyl chloride because it will 

always be present at this emission point, and controlling it 

will control all other HAP.

Comment: Commenters stated that gasholders should not be 

regulated as storage vessels, but should be considered as surge

control vessels, due to their process functions. Specifically, 

commenters contended that based on the CAA liquid storage 

definitions and associated requirements, gasholders do not meet 

the definitions of “fixed roof” storage vessel or “floating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 197 of 511

roof” storage vessel and, thus, recommended that gasholders be 

defined as surge control vessels in 40 CFR 63.12005. One 

commenter also agreed with the EPA that gasholder seal water 

should not be regulated as wastewater.

The commenters stated that it is impractical to measure 

gasholder fugitive emissions or route them to a stack, thus work 

practices should be used to control these gasholder emissions. 

One commenter recommended that the EPA regulate PVC MACT 

gasholders in the same way as other surge control vessels at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H. The commenters stated that the PVC MACT 

standard for gasholders should be a combination of equipment 

control and procedural requirements. The commenter described 

studies undertaken to determine the feasibility of certain 

control technologies like the use of floating objects to cover 

the water seal, finding that though these approaches can reduce 

emissions, they have drawbacks as well, and thus should be used 

in combination with procedural standards.

One commenter provided information related to emissions and 

controls for gasholders, as requested by the EPA in the 

preamble. The commenter stated that gasholders are important for 

safety and stability of the operation in the PVC process, with 

the process equipment specifically designed around gasholders to 

maintain safe pressure and gas flow to the closed vent and vinyl 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 198 of 511

chloride recovery systems. According to the commenter, any 

changes to the design of the existing system could compromise 

safety procedures and would impose a burdensome capital 

investment. Finally, the commenter recommended the use of 

floating objects, such as balls, hallow disks, an oil layer or 

rubber mats, in the gasholder water seal for emissions 

reductions, because it is a flexible system that provides a 

consistent degree of control without creating additional waste 

management concerns.

Response: In the proposed rule, we requested comment on 

techniques to control emissions from gasholders. We reviewed the 

information submitted by the industry and have concluded that it 

is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for 

emissions of vinyl chloride or other HAP from the water seal and 

the outside of the floating bell on gasholders. For PVC 

facilities that have gasholders, they are an integral part of 

the vinyl chloride recovery process and are connected to the 

closed vent system that collects and routes process vent 

emissions from process components to the vinyl chloride recovery 

system. After vinyl chloride recovery, any remaining process 

vent gasses are routed through the closed vent system to a 

control device. There are, however, emissions from gasholders 

that originate from the water seal and the outer portion of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 199 of 511

floating bell that are fugitive in nature. The water seal 

contacts vinyl chloride and other HAP contained in the 

gasholder, and thus, there is the potential to emit HAP from the 

water in the gasholder seal and the thin film of water that 

accumulates on the outer surface of the floating bell. It is not 

technically practicable to route these emissions into or through 

a conveyance designed and constructed to capture and control 

them to an enforceable emission limit. Therefore, in the final 

rule, we are promulgating a work practice and equipment standard 

consistent with the provisions of section 112(h) of the CAA. In 

the final rule, we are requiring facilities to install and 

maintain floating objects on the surface of the gasholder water 

seal to minimize emissions of vinyl chloride and other HAP. We 

are also requiring facilities to develop a standard operating 

procedure for each gasholder to ensure that the floating objects 

are properly maintained and that emissions are minimized.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should remove 

CDD/CDF CEMS from the rule. The commenters contended that 

CDD/CDF CEMS technology is not well developed. One commenter 

stated that an EPA CDD/CDF CEMS study noted that, within the 

range of 1-10 ng/dscm, TEQ relative accuracy was reported 

G. Initial and Continuous Compliance and Recordkeeping and 

Reporting
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 200 of 511

between 23 percent and 75 percent. The commenter contended that 

the technology would not be useful with such a wide range of 

relative accuracy at the proposed limit. Another commenter 

stated that the technology is not commercially available in the 

United States. Another commenter indicated that monitors in use 

are mainly in other countries. Another commenter added that 

several of the available monitors are not continuous because 

they are not real time and require using a third party lab for 

results.

Response: We agree with the commenter on the availability 

of CEMS for CDD/CDF. CEMS for CDD/CDF and HCl are still being 

developed and the EPA does not have specifications for the 

technology currently. In the final rule, we have removed the 

requirement for CDD/CDF and HCl CEMS, but have retained them as 

an option for existing and new sources once performance 

specifications have been promulgated. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, if the PVC MACT and 

GACT are combined, the EPA needs to fully consider the cost of 

the MACT on area sources and modify the requirements to minimize 

the burden on area sources. The commenter stated that GACT 

standards required by CAA section 112(d)(5) are different from 

MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(3) and, though the 

H. Area Sources 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 201 of 511

technologies employed in these facilities are similar, the EPA 

has not performed the required economic analysis in setting 

GACT. One commenter stated that, given the burdens on reduced 

workforces at smaller facilities, scaled-back requirements such 

as reduced stack testing frequency or reduced CPMS requirements 

are warranted and will have no negative impact on air emissions 

or compliance at area source facilities. The commenter added

that the economic impact of the proposed PVC MACT on area 

sources makes these measures necessary for the facilities to 

remain financially viable.

One commenter stated that the proposed GACT standard for 

process vents for vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF are not appropriate 

or cost effective, based on small emissions reduction and high 

cost calculated in the EPA’s analysis. The commenter added that 

these limits are redundant since total organic HAP includes 

vinyl chloride and CDD/CDF and, thus, they contended that the 

vinyl chloride standards should be eliminated.

One commenter made several comments regarding the 

pollutants proposed for regulation for area sources under GACT. 

The commenter stated that regulation of “total HAP” and 

“CDD/CDF” under the area source GACT standard is not warranted 

because, although the agency has discretion to regulate all 

urban HAP for area sources, total HAP is not an urban HAP (they 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 202 of 511

contend that classifying total HAP as an urban HAP would make 

the list meaningless), and CDD/CDF is not a HAP at all (thus, 

the EPA has no authority to regulate CDD/CDF under CAA section 

112). Furthermore, the commenter contended that control 

technologies already used by CertainTeed to control vinyl 

chloride also achieve control of individual organic HAP. For 

CDD/CDF, the commenter pointed out that the EPA’s own analysis 

showed that the proposed regulation would achieve little, if 

any, reductions. The commenter concluded that there is no 

benefit to establishing a standard for total HAP or CDD/CDF. The 

commenter added that the regulation of HCl under the area source 

GACT standard is not warranted either. They contended that, 

because the EPA has the discretion to revise the GACT standard 

only as necessary, the EPA must first determine that regulation 

of HCl is necessary. Instead, the commenter stated that the EPA 

seeks to regulate HCl emissions and suggests that such 

regulation is “appropriate” simply based on the fact that such 

emissions “are generated.” In light of this, the commenter 

concluded that the proposed GACT standards for HCl should not be 

finalized.

Response: We proposed GACT standards for PVC area sources 

based on the proposed MACT standards for major sources. For the 

final rule, we have updated our analysis of area source GACT, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 203 of 511

considering comments received, including our analysis of cost 

considerations. Our revised GACT analysis assesses each PVC 

emission point (e.g., process vents, stripped resin, equipment 

leaks, etc.) individually, for both existing and new sources, to

determine the appropriate level of control, considering cost and 

emission reduction. The GACT analysis was conducted for the same 

subcategories as major sources.

Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to 

promulgate standards or requirements for area sources "which 

provide for the use of generally available control technologies 

or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants." We issued such standards 

for PVC area sources in 2007.

Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to “review, 

and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in 

practices, processes, and control technologies), emission 

standards promulgated under this section no less often than 

every 8 years.” With this rulemaking, we are fulfilling our 

obligation to review and revise, as necessary, the PVC 

Production area source standards. The 2007 NESHAP for PVC 

Production area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD) are

based on GACT. The area source NESHAP set emission limits only 

for vinyl chloride, which was the pollutant for which we needed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 204 of 511

the PVC production area source category to meet our 90-percent 

obligation in CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). In this final 

rule, we are tightening emission standards for vinyl chloride 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). We are also establishing emission 

standards for CDD/CDF and THC for process vents (with an 

alternative compliance limit for total organic HAP) and total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP for stripped resins and 

wastewater under CAA section 112(d)(5). We are also setting work 

practice standards under CAA section 112(h).

In this final rule, we have determined that area source 

emission limits should be set for THC as a surrogate for organic 

HAP, along with limits for CDD/CDF and vinyl chloride, for 

process vents, and for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP and 

vinyl chloride for stripped resins and process wastewater. We 

discussed earlier in this preamble our specific reasons for 

establishing emissions limits for these pollutants from PVC 

facilities. We also determined that it is appropriate to provide 

a total organic HAP limit as an alternative to the THC limit for 

process vents at area sources, just as we did for PVC major 

sources. We disagree with the commenter who states that the EPA 

should not establish a total organic HAP limit (or total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP limit for stripped resins and process 

wastewater) because total organic HAP is not an urban HAP. We 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 205 of 511

note that the commenter concedes that the agency has discretion 

to regulate all urban HAP for area sources. As explained in 

other area source rules, such as the final National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources (70 FR 56018, October 29, 2009), the 

agency has discretion to set standards for all urban HAP, which 

in this case includes CDD/CDF and organic HAP, and to not limit 

standards to only the urban HAP for which the area source 

category was listed (i.e., vinyl chloride). The comment that we 

should limit area source standards to only the urban HAP is also 

in conflict with other industry comments advocating THC as a 

surrogate. As we explained previously in preamble section V.C, 

THC is a reasonable surrogate for controlling all organic HAP 

from PVC process vents. However, while control of THC ensures 

control of all organic HAP (as does the total organic HAP 

alternative), THC cannot differentiate between organic HAP that 

is urban HAP and organic HAP that is not urban HAP. The 

commenter’s statement also is in conflict with our determination 

that a total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limit is an 

appropriate limit for stripped resins and process wastewater in 

order to account for the variability in emissions due to the 

different resin grades produced, often at one facility (see 

discussion at preamble section V.C). Further, the EPA has 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 206 of 511

discretion to regulate all HAP where we have listed a source 

category. However, we agree with the commenters that it is not 

necessary to set separate limits for HCl from process vents at

PVC area sources.

We disagree with the commenter’s statement that CDD/CDF is 

not a HAP. We are authorized to regulate the CDD/CDF class of 

HAP. While dibenzofuran and 2,3,7,8-TCDD are identified by name 

as HAP in CAA section 112, all CDD/CDF are polycyclic organic 

matter, and, as such, we have the authority to regulate these 

compounds.

We disagree with the commenter who stated reduced stack 

testing frequency or reduced CPMS requirements are warranted for 

area sources. We believe that these requirements are necessary 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits regardless of 

the size of the facility or the magnitude of emissions. 

Therefore, the same testing and monitoring requirements apply to 

both major and area sources. Since the PVC-only and PVC-combined 

process vent area source limits are based on the facility in 

each subcategory, no additional controls would be needed and no 

emission reductions would occur. Monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting would be the only costs. (See Tables 16 and 17 of this 

preamble.) We agree with the commenter that total organic HAP 

includes vinyl chloride and dioxins and furans, but we disagree 

Comment [A10]: Please clarify what 

is meant by this. Why is it 

relevant if you have listed a 

source category, or is there more 

that should qualify that statement. 

Further, why do you have the 

discretion to regulate all HAP if 

you listed a source category for 

specific HAP?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 207 of 511

that vinyl chloride standards should be eliminated, since vinyl 

chloride emissions limits already apply to PVC facilities under 

Part 61, and they serve as a check on a unit’s recovery process 

efficiency and since physical measurement of vinyl chloride from 

process vents occurs only every 5 years. While distinguishing 

vinyl chloride emissions from other HAP is possible for the 

total organic HAP emission limit, 

In determining what constitutes GACT for this final rule, 

we considered the control technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to PVC area sources by examining 

relevant data and information, including information collected 

from PVC area sources. We also considered the control measures 

applicable to PVC major sources to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices are transferable and 

generally available to area sources. As part of the GACT 

determination, we considered the costs and economic impacts of 

available control technologies and management practices on area 

sources which are documented in the technical memorandum, 

Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area 

Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) 

Production Source Category, which is available in the docket.

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the EPA can promulgate 

standards or requirements for area sources "which provide for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 208 of 511

the use of generally available control technologies or 

management practices [“GACT”] by such sources to reduce 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants." Additional information 

on GACT is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT 

as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are 

commercially available and appropriate for application by 

the sources in the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and 

maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider 

costs and economic impacts in determining GACT.

Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the 

control technologies and management practices that are generally 

available to the area sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to major sources in the 

analogous source category to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices are transferable and 

generally available to area sources. In appropriate

circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices 

at area and major sources in similar categories to determine 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 209 of 511

whether such technologies and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source categories at issue.

We determined new and existing area source standards for 

each emission point by evaluating the current (also referred to 

as baseline) level of control and control options beyond the 

current level of control. 

For each emission point, we determined the current level of 

control for existing area sources, incorporating variability. If 

no area source currently exists in the category or subcategory, 

the least controlled major source, in each subcategory for each 

regulated pollutant, as applicable, was analyzed as the baseline 

level of control for GACT. We also evaluated having the area 

sources meet the major source level of control but determined 

that it was not The only two existing PVC area sources that we 

are aware of produce bulk resin and suspension resin, 

respectively. No existing area sources produce dispersion resin, 

suspension blending resin, or copolymer resin. However, if an 

existing PVC major source is able to become a synthetic area 

source, e.g., by taking a federally enforceable limit on its

potential to emit, before the first compliance date of this 

rule, it would be subject to area source rather than major 

source PVC NESHAP requirements. Therefore, in order to develop 

GACT standards for other stripped resin subcategories, we 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 210 of 511

determined the baseline level of control for these subcategories 

in which there is no existing area source to be equivalent to 

that of the least controlled major source, i.e., for the 

dispersion, suspension blending, and copolymer subcategories for 

stripped resins. For the suspension blending and copolymer 

subcategories, there is only one major source. So for these 

subcategories of stripped resin, the level of control of the 

least controlled major source was the same as the major source 

MACT floor level of control. In addition, gasholders are the 

only emission source that are located at major sources but not 

located at area sources. Therefore, we determined that the 

baseline level of control for gasholders is equivalent to that 

of the least controlled PVC major source with a small gasholder.

We believe that all future possible existing area sources should 

be able to achieve these levels of control, as we predict that 

most, if not all, such sources will be major sources that limit 

their potential to emit to levels below the major source 

thresholds before the first substantive compliance date of this 

rule. See 42 U.S.C. 112(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 63.2 (definition of 

“potential to emit”). For equipment leaks, heat exchange 

systems, and storage vessels, we determined that the level of

control was the same as the major source work practice 

standards. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 211 of 511

We are also establishing new source GACT. We have data from 

the two existing area source facilities, and those facilities 

form the basis of our new source GACT analysis. For the PVCcombined process vents, PVC-only process vents, bulk resin and 

suspension resin subcategories, we have data from one area 

source facility. For the other emission points (except for 

dispersion resin, suspension blending resin and copolymer resin 

discussed in the previous paragraph) both facilities are 

equivalent in terms of their current level of control. For 

equipment leaks, the CertainTeed Lake Charles facility and the 

OxyVinyls Deer Park facility both comply with 40 CFR part 61,

subpart V. Therefore, we find that the level of control for new 

area sources is equivalent to the level of control for existing 

area sources.

Control options beyond the current or baseline level of 

control for existing sources were analyzed on a basis of cost 

effectiveness. We determined the emission reductions, if any, 

associated with existing PVC area sources meeting levels of 

control more stringent than the current or baseline level of 

control. We then estimated the annual cost of testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and any operating and 

maintenance costs associated with control devices required to 

meet the more stringent control levels. We developed a cost 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 212 of 511

effectiveness estimate by dividing the annual cost of the more 

stringent control level with the annual emission reduction. The 

control options analyzed are as follows: 

For PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and 

existing area sources, for each subcategory, we analyzed two 

additional control options beyond the current level of control. 

The first option was requiring the current level of control, as 

discussed above, and the testing and monitoring requirements for 

process vents at existing major sources. The same types of 

controls are used at both existing area and major sources. The 

testing and monitoring necessary to ensure compliance with the 

emission limits and to ensure proper operation of the control 

device are the same regardless of the size of the control 

device. The second option was requiring meeting the emission 

limits for existing major sources in addition to the testing and 

monitoring requirements for existing major sources.

For PVC-only process vents at new and existing area 

sources, we determined that the second option was not cost 

effective; instead, we concluded that the first option was 

appropriate. We determined that the major source testing and 

monitoring requirements are appropriate and necessary to ensure 

that area sources are in compliance with the process vent 

standards, whether those required standards are the current 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 213 of 511

level of control or major source standards. Therefore, we are

requiring PVC-only and PVC-combined process vents at new and 

existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the current 

level of control and the testing and monitoring requirements for 

existing major sources. 

For stripped resins at new and existing PVC area sources, 

we analyzed two additional control options beyond the current or 

baseline level of control for each subcategory. The first option 

was requiring the current or baseline level of control and the 

testing and monitoring requirements for stripped resins at 

existing major sources. The second option was meeting the 

emission limits for existing major sources in addition to the 

testing and monitoring requirements for existing major sources. 

For the bulk and suspension resin subcategories, we are setting 

the stripped resin limits for new and existing area sources 

equivalent to their current level of control, accounting for 

variability, and testing and monitoring requirements for major 

sources for each stripped resin subcategory. For dispersion 

resins, GACT is based on the baseline level of control, i.e., 

the least controlled major source and limits were developed for 

dispersion resins based on data from that source. For the 

suspension blending and copolymer resin subcategories, we are 

requiring the emission limits for existing major sources since 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 214 of 511

there was only one source in each of these subcategories (i.e., 

the baseline level of control was the level of control the 

existing major source) in addition to the testing and monitoring 

requirements for existing major sources. Similar to process 

vents, we determined that it is appropriate to require testing 

and monitoring requirements for major sources to ensure 

compliance.

For process and maintenance wastewater at new and existing 

PVC area sources, we analyzed three additional control options 

beyond the current baseline. The first option was requiring the 

current level of control and the testing and monitoring 

requirements for wastewater at existing major sources. The 

second option was meeting the emission limits for existing major 

sources in addition to the testing and monitoring requirements 

for wastewater at existing major sources. The third option was 

meeting the emission limits for new major sources in addition to 

the testing and monitoring requirements for wastewater at 

existing major sources. We determined that the second option of 

emission limits for existing major sources was less stringent 

than (i.e., not beyond) the current baseline for new and 

existing area sources. We determined that the third option of

emission limits for new major sources were not cost effective 

for new or existing PVC area sources. Therefore, we are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 215 of 511

requiring process and maintenance wastewater at new and existing 

area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the current baseline

and the major source testing and monitoring requirements.

Similar to process vents, we determined that it is appropriate 

to require testing and monitoring requirements for major sources 

and necessary to ensure that area sources are in compliance with 

the process and maintenance wastewater standards.

For equipment leaks and for heat exchangers at new and 

existing PVC area sources, we analyzed one additional control 

option beyond the current level of control. The additional 

option was meeting the emission standards for equipment leaks 

and for heat exchangers at existing major sources. We determined 

that the emission standards for equipment leaks and heat 

exchangers at existing major sources are cost effective for new 

and existing area sources. Therefore, we are requiring new and 

existing area sources to comply with GACT by meeting the 

equipment leak and heat exchanger standards at existing major 

sources.

For storage tanks at new and existing PVC area sources, we 

analyzed one additional control option beyond the current 

baseline. The additional option was meeting the emission 

standards for storage tanks at existing major sources. We 

determined the emission standards for storage tanks at existing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 216 of 511

major sources are cost effective for new and existing area 

sources. Therefore, we are requiring new and existing area 

sources comply with GACT by meeting the emission standards for 

existing major sources. 

For other emission sources, the current level of control is 

emission standards for reactor and other equipment openings 

equivalent to the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, 

which is also equivalent to the major source level of control. 

We analyzed an additional option for gasholders equivalent to 

the emission standards for gasholders at major sources. The 

option was determined to be cost effective for new and existing 

area sources. Therefore, we are requiring that new and existing 

area sources comply with GACT by meeting the emission standards 

for gasholders and reactor openings at major sources. 

Tables 16 and 17 present a summary of the control options

analysis for new and existing area sources.

Table 16. Summary of Control Option Analysis for Existing Area 

Sources

Emission 

Point

Control Option 

Analyzed Beyond 

Current Level of 

Control

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

of 

Compliance 

($/yr)

Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy -

Total HAP)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton Total 

HAP)

PVC-only 

process 

vents

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,890 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing 180,245 0.257 701,814

PVCcombined 

process 

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,890 0 -a

Existing Major Source 10,890 0 -a
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 217 of 511

Emission 

Point

Control Option 

Analyzed Beyond 

Current Level of 

Control

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

of 

Compliance 

($/yr)

Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy -

Total HAP)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton Total 

HAP)

vents emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

Stripped 

resins (all 

subcategori

es)

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,615 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

10,615 0 -a

Process and 

maintenance 

wastewater

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 19,777 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

19,777 0 -a

New Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

2,996,390 12.2 245,516

Maintenance 

wastewater

Major Source Work 

Practices

Equipment 

leaks

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

72,525 9.29 7,807

Heat 

exchangers

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

25,529 15.1 1,691

Other 

emission 

sources

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

3,108 0 $4,921b

Storage 

tanks

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

3,108 0 2,000-12,000c

a Option does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost 

effectiveness was not applicable. b Emission reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting a model small 

gasholder with floating objects to reduce emissions from the gasholder water 

seal. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness was equal 

to $4,921 per ton of vinyl chloride reduced. We are not aware of any 

gasholders operated at existing PVC area sources; therefore no emission 

reductions are shown. c Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting subpart WW 

controls on model fixed roof tanks meeting Subpart Kb vapor pressure and 

size parameters. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness 

ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option 

depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted 

by PVC production facilities, no storage vessels from affected sources that 

meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure 

levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels 

meeting capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure 

levels would be constructed at a new source.

$/yr–dollars per year.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 218 of 511

tpy–tons per year.

$/Ton Total HAP–dollars per ton of total HAP.

MACT–maximum achievable control technology.

BTF–beyond the floor.

Table 17. Summary of Control Option Analysis for New Area 

Sources

Emission 

Point

Control Option 

Analyzed Beyond 

Current Level of 

Control

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

of 

Compliance 

($/yr)

Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy -

Total HAP)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton Total 

HAP)

PVC-only 

process 

vents

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,890 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

180,245 0.257 701,814

PVCcombined 

process 

vents

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,890 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

10,890 0 -a

Stripped 

resins (all 

subcategori

es)

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 10,615 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

10,615 0 -a

Process and 

maintenance 

wastewater

Major Source Testing 

and Monitoring 9,888 0 -a

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

9,888 0 -a

New Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

1,988,368 8.91 223,169

Maintenance 

wastewater

Major Source Work 

Practices

Equipment 

leaks

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

36,263 4.64 7,807

Heat 

exchangers

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

12,764 11.4 1,117

Other 

emission 

sources

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

3,032 0.616 4,922

Storage 

tanks

Existing Major Source 

emission standards, 

monitoring and testing

1,554 0 2,000-12,000b

a Option does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost 

effectiveness was not applicable. b Emissions reductions and costs were calculated for retrofitting subpart WW 

controls on model fixed roof tanks meeting Subpart Kb vapor pressure and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 219 of 511

size parameters. The results of the analysis showed that cost effectiveness 

ranged from $2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP reduced by this option 

depending on the number of turnovers assumed. Based on information submitted 

by PVC production facilities, no storage vessels from affected sources that 

meet the capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure 

levels were identified. Therefore, it was assumed that no storage vessels 

meeting capacity levels storing materials that meet the vapor pressure 

levels would be constructed at a new source.

$/yr–dollars per year.

tpy–tons per year.

$/Ton Total HAP–dollars per ton of total HAP.

MACT–maximum achievable control technology.

BTF–beyond the floor.

A detailed discussion of these options and the cost and 

impacts estimated for them is found in the memorandum, Generally 

Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources 

in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category, and is available in the docket. The results of the 

GACT analysis are presented in Section VI.A and VI.B of this 

preamble. 

The summary of the area source requirements in the final rule is 

discussed in Section IV.I of this preamble.

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s proposed 

equipment leak standards. The commenters stated that the EPA’s 

estimates of baseline fugitive emissions are not valid and not 

representative of CertainTeed’s actual measured fugitive 

emissions from equipment leaks, because EPA estimated the 

emissions from equipment leaks by applying average emission 

factors instead of relying on actual measured data. The

commenter contended that because of these estimates, the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 220 of 511

grossly overestimated the level of fugitive emission reductions. 

The commenter concluded that because of these overestimations, 

the cost of the proposed Equipment Leak GACT standards cannot be 

justified by the potential emission reductions.

Response: At proposal, we estimated baseline emissions and 

reductions for fugitive emissions from equipment leaks using the 

1995 EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. We 

agree with the commenter that the 1995 factors yield 

conservatively high estimates of actual emissions. As part of 

the technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, 

the EPA has developed new emission factors for equipment leaks 

that better represent fugitive emissions at chemical 

manufacturing processes and petroleum refineries. Emission 

factors were developed using facility data from the 

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP MACT floor development and the EPA 

Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. (Please refer to the 

memorandum in the docket titled Technology Review for Equipment 

Leaks for additional information regarding the development of 

new emission factors for equipment leaks.) Although the 

commenter provided annual fugitive emissions from equipment 

leaks for years 2007 through 2010, the commenter did not provide 

any equipment leak monitoring records, test reports, or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 221 of 511

additional documentation supporting their emission estimates. 

Therefore, we have chosen to estimate fugitive emissions for 

both major and area sources using the updated emission factors 

for consistency across all PVCPU. Using updated emission factors 

and equipment counts provided by CertainTeed where available, we 

have updated the baseline emission estimate for fugitive HAP 

emissions from equipment leaks at the CertainTeed facility to 10 

tpy. We have also updated our emissions reduction estimate to

4.64 tpy of HAP as a result of the facility complying with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UU.

We have also updated the total capital investment and total 

annualized costs of the CertainTeed facility complying with 

subpart UU and installing and operating a pressure relief device 

monitoring system using equipment counts where provided by the 

facility. The analysis is documented in the memorandum titled 

Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area 

Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) 

Production Source Category in the PVC docket. The total cost 

effectiveness is estimated to equal $6,840 dollars per ton of 

total HAP; therefore, we are finalizing the requirements for 

area sources to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU and 

install and operate a pressure relief device monitoring system.

I. Definitions
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 222 of 511

The following definitions have been revised since the 

proposal: Batch process vent, conservation vent, continuous 

process vent, grade, in HAP service, operating scenario, 

polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production 

process unit or PVCPU, polyvinyl chloride copolymer, pressure 

relief device, process vent, solution process, type of resin and 

wastewater.

We have revised the definition of batch process vent to 

provide consistency with our revisions to the definitions of 

continuous process vent and process vent and to clarify that 

batch process vents must be routed to a closed vent system and 

control device. We also clarify that all emission episodes 

associated with a batch unit operation are part of the batch 

process vent. We have also removed language from the definition 

that excluded certain types of vents or vents from certain 

components or equipment. In the final rule, batch process vent

means a vent from a batch operation from a PVCPU through which a 

HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be released to 

the atmosphere except that it is required by this subpart to 

routed to a closed vent system and control device. Emissions for 

all emission episodes associated with the unit operation(s) are 

part of the batch process vent. Batch process vents also include 

vents with intermittent flow from continuous operations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 223 of 511

Examples of batch process vents include, but are not limited to, 

vents on condensers used for product recovery, polymerization 

reactors and process tanks.

We have revised the definition of conservation vent to 

provide additional clarification. In the final rule, 

conservation vent means an automatically operated (e.g., weightloaded or spring-loaded) safety device used to prevent the 

operating pressure of a storage vessel from exceeding the 

maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. 

Conservation vents must be designed to open only when the 

operating pressure of the storage vessel exceeds the maximum 

allowable working pressure of the process component. 

Conservation vents open and close to permit only the intake or 

outlet relief necessary to keep the storage vessel within 

permissible working pressures, and reseal automatically.

We have revised the definition of continuous process vent

to provide consistency with our revisions to the definitions of 

batch process vent and process vent. We also clarify that 

continuous process vents must be routed to a closed vent system 

and control device. In the final rule, continuous process vent

means a vent from a continuous PVCPU operation through which a 

HAP-containing gas stream has the potential to be released to 

the atmosphere, except that it is required by this subpart to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 224 of 511

routed to a closed vent system and control device and has the 

following characteristics: 

(1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any 

continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU.

(2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control 

device meets at least one of the following conditions:

(i) Is directly from any continuous operation.

(ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely 

(i.e.

(iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy 

from a gas stream that comes either directly from any continuous 

operation or from any continuous operation after passing solely 

(

, without passing through any other unit operation for a 

process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the 

PVCPU.

i.e.

We have revised the definition of grade to specify resin 

“type” instead of resin “classification” since resins are first 

classified by type, and types are further subdivided into 

grades. We have also provided an example of a resin grade. In

the final rule, grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that 

describes it as a unique resin, i.e., the most exact description 

, without passing through any other unit operation for a 

process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the 

PVCPU.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 225 of 511

of a type of resin with no further subdivision. Examples include 

low molecular weight suspension resins and general purpose 

suspension resins.

We have revised the definition of in HAP service. In the 

final rule, in HAP service

We have revised the definition of 

means that a process component either 

contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by 

weight or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP, as 

determined according to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d). For 

the purposes of this definition, the term “in organic HAP

service,” as used in 40 CFR 63.180(d), means “in HAP service.”

The provisions of 40 CFR 63.180(d) also specify how to determine 

that a process component is not in HAP service.

polyvinyl chloride to 

clarify that it includes homopolymers and copolymers. In the 

final rule, polyvinyl chloride

We have revised the definition of 

means either polyvinyl chloride 

homopolymer or polyvinyl chloride copolymer.

PVCPU to remove 

components that are storage tanks or vessels, heat exchange 

systems, wastewater and wastewater collection and treatment 

systems, and add instrumentation systems. Multiple PVCPU may be 

located at the same affected source and share storage tanks, 

heat exchange systems and process wastewater treatment systems. 

Therefore this shared equipment has been removed from the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 226 of 511

definition of a PVCPU and is now included in the definition of 

the affected source instead of the PVCPU. In the final rule, 

polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit or 

(PVCPU)

We have revised the definition of 

means a collection of process components assembled and 

connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw 

materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl 

chloride copolymers. A PVCPU includes, but is not limited to, 

polymerization reactors; resin stripping operations; resin blend 

tanks; resin centrifuges; resin dryers; resin product 

separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw material charge 

vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing tanks; 

finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished 

resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; 

equipment including pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 

relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves 

or lines, valves and connectors and instrumentation systems. A 

PVCPU does not include chemical manufacturing process units, as 

defined in §63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other 

raw materials used in the PVC polymerization process.

polyvinyl chloride 

copolymer to clarify that polyvinyl chloride copolymers can also 

be produced using a suspension blending process. In the final 

rule, polyvinyl chloride copolymer means a synthetic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 227 of 511

thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the simultaneous 

polymerization of vinyl chloride and another monomer, such as 

vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by 

different processes, including, but not limited to, suspension, 

dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending and solution processes.

We have revised the definition of pressure relief device to 

remove the condition that devices actuated either by a pressure 

of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge or by 

a vacuum are not pressure relief devices. In the final rule, 

pressure relief device

We have revised the definition of 

means a safety device used to prevent 

operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working 

pressure of the process component. A common pressure relief 

device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve.

process vent to provide 

consistency with our revised definitions of batch process vent 

and continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent. In the final 

rule, process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the 

manifolding of each and all batch process vent, continuous 

process vent or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected 

facility into a closed vent system and into a common header that

is routed to a control device. The process vent standards apply 

at the outlet of the control device. A process vent is either a 

PVC-only process vent or a PVC-combined process vent.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 228 of 511

We have revised the definition of solution processes to 

specify that the process produces a polyvinyl chloride copolymer 

instead of only a polyvinyl chloride resin. In the final rule, 

solution process

At proposal, we defined a surge control vessel as part of 

any continuous operation. However, based on industry comments, 

gasholders meet the definition of a surge control vessel 

although gasholders may receive and introduce material into 

batch processes in addition to continuous processes. Therefore, 

we have modified the definition of a surge control vessel to 

reflect the definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H and remove 

the specification that surge control vessels must be used as 

part of a continuous operation and introduce material into 

continuous operations. We have, however, modified the definition 

means a process for producing polyvinyl 

chloride copolymer resin that is characterized by the anhydrous 

formation of the polymer through precipitation. Polymerization 

occurs in an organic solvent in the presence of an initiator 

where VCM and co-monomers are soluble in the solvent, but the 

polymer is not. The PVC copolymer is a granule suspended in the 

solvent, which then precipitates out of solution. Emulsifiers 

and suspending agents are not used in the solution process. 

Copolymer resins produced using the solution process are 

referred to as solution resins.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 229 of 511

from 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, to specify that surge control 

vessels are used within an affected source (and not solely a 

process unit) since PVCPU may share gasholders. In the final 

rule, surge control vessel

We have revised the definition of 

means feed drums, recycle drums and 

intermediate vessels used as a part of any continuous operation. 

Surge control vessels are used within an affected source when 

in-process storage, mixing or management of flow rates or 

volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous 

operations. Surge control vessels also include gasholders. 

type of resin to include 

additional resin types identified by commenters after proposal, 

specifically blending types of resin. In the final rule, type of 

resin

We have revised the definition of wastewater to mirror 

definitions in other chemical sector rules, such as the HON, for 

consistency as several facilities are currently subject to 

multiple wastewater provisions. We have also specified what is 

not considered wastewater. In the final rule, wastewater means 

process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. The following are 

not considered wastewater for the purposes of this subpart:

means the broad classification of resin referring to the 

basic manufacturing process for producing that resin, including, 

but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension 

blending, bulk and solution processes. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 230 of 511

(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;

(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including 

testing of such systems;

(3) Spills;

(4) Water from safety showers;

(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably 

necessary for the method of analysis that is used;

(6) Equipment leaks;

(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting 

hoses after cleaning lines; and

(8) Noncontact cooling water.

The following definitions have been added to the final 

rule: gasholder, hard-piping, heat exchanger exit line, 

maintenance wastewater, miscellaneous vent, polyvinyl chloride 

homopolymer, process wastewater, process wastewater treatment 

system, PVC-combined process vent, PVC-only process vent, 

suspension blending process, table 10 HAP, total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP and wastewater stream

We have added a definition for 

.

polyvinyl chloride 

homopolymers to distinguish between homopolymers and copolymers. 

During the comment period, industry provided additional resin 

data distinguishing homopolymers and copolymers and is based 

largely on the proposed definition for polyvinyl chloride. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 231 of 511

reasons discussion in Section V.D of this preamble, we have set

limits for five subcategories of resin, including copolymers. 

Therefore, the new definitions are necessary to distinguish 

between homopolymers and copolymers. The definitions are based 

on the information provided in comments. In the final rule, 

polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic thermoplastic 

polymer that is derived from the polymerization of vinyl 

chloride and has the general chemical structure (-H2CCHCl-)n. 

Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is typically a white powder or 

colorless granule. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymers are produced 

by different processes, including (but not limited to) 

suspension, dispersion/emulsion, blending and bulk processes.

At proposal, we did not set separate limits for suspension 

blending resins. During the comment period, industry provided 

additional resin data regarding suspension blending resins. As 

described in Section V.D of this preamble, we have set limits

for five types of resin, including suspension blending. 

Therefore, a definition to distinguish suspension blending 

resins from other resin types is necessary. The definition is 

based on the information provided in comments. In the final 

rule, suspension blending process means a process for producing 

polyvinyl chloride resin that is similar to the suspension 

polymerization process, but employs a rate of agitation that is 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 232 of 511

significantly higher than the highest range for non-blending 

suspension resins. The suspension blending process uses a recipe 

that creates extremely small resin particles, generally equal to 

or less than 100 microns in size, with a glassy surface and very 

little porosity. The suspension blending process concentrates 

the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically designed to 

handle these small particles. Polyvinyl chloride resins produced 

using the suspension blending process are referred to as 

blending resins and are typically blended with dispersion 

resins. 

At proposal, we did not subcategorize process vents. For 

the final rule, we are subcategorizing process vents into PVConly and PVC-combined vents for reasons discussed in Section V.D

of this preamble. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish

between the two process vent subcategories. In the final rule, 

PVC-only process vent means a process vent that originates from 

a PVCPU and is not combined with a process vent originating from 

another source category prior to being controlled or emitted to 

the atmosphere. In the final rule, PVC-combined process vent

means a process vent that originates from a PVCPU and is

combined with one or more process vents originating from another

source category prior to being controlled or emitted to the 

atmosphere. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 233 of 511

At proposal, we did not have information on gasholders and 

did not propose standards for them. Following proposal, industry 

provided comment on control options and cost information for 

gasholders and we have included requirements for gasholders in 

the final rule. Therefore it was necessary to add a definition 

for gasholders to the final rule. The definition is based on 

information provided in comments. In the final rule, gasholder 

At proposal, we did not define 

means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating in a 

vessel filled with water and is used to store gases from the PVC 

production process prior to being recovered or sent to a process 

vent control device. The bell rises and lowers as low-pressure 

gases enter and leave the space beneath the bell and the water 

provides a seal between the enclosed gas within the floating 

bell and the ambient air.

maintenance wastewater, but 

instead, required that all wastewater be subject to the same 

proposed provisions. We received comments from industry 

contending that quantifying a concentration to establish 

compliance for maintenance wastewater would be extremely 

difficult if not impossible because maintenance activities are 

highly variable. Industry also noted that HAP are minimized in 

maintenance wastewater by requiring that components meet 

applicable opening standards before the introduction of water 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 234 of 511

for cleaning. The final rule includes provisions that address 

process and maintenance wastewater separately; therefore, we 

have added definitions for maintenance wastewater and process 

wastewater to the final rule. The definitions are based on those 

provided in the HON, because the wastewater streams are similar 

and, in some cases, they are co-located. In the final rule,

maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the 

draining of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an 

individual drain system prior to or during maintenance 

activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during 

planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not 

associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can 

generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat 

exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components 

such as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers,

draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps 

into an individual drain system, draining of portions of the 

PVCPU for repair and water used to wash out process components 

or equipment after the process components or equipment has 

already been opened to the atmosphere and has met the 

requirements of §63.11955. In the final rule, process wastewater

means water that comes into direct contact with HAP or results 

from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 235 of 511

product, finished product, by-product or waste product 

containing HAP, but that has not been discharged untreated as 

wastewater. Examples are product tank drawdown or feed tank 

drawdown; water formed during a chemical reaction or used as a 

reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic products or 

reactants; water used to cool or quench organic vapor streams 

through direct contact; water discarded from a control device; 

and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on 

vessels containing organics. Gasholder seal water is not process 

wastewater until it is removed from the gasholder.

In the final rule, wastewater stream

Also in the final rule, 

means a stream that 

contains only wastewater as defined in this section.

table 10 HAP means a HAP compound 

listed in table 10 of final rule. Total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of 

the measured concentrations of each table 10 compound as 

calculated according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR 

63.11960(e) and 40 CFR 63.11980(b).

Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that costs for 

PRD are greatly underestimated. One commenter estimated that 

retrofitting existing PRD with release indicators will cost 

$5,000 per PRD. The commenter stated that these costs include 

J. Cost and emission impacts
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 236 of 511

the actual measurement device itself, installation labor, wiring 

back to the control room, input/output cards in distributed 

control system (DCS) and initial configuration (programming) of 

the DCS for alarms, logging, etc. The commenter stated that with 

two facilities each containing over 100 PRD the total cost would 

be over $1,000,000 to retrofit. Another commenter also cited an 

estimate of $5,000 if a wireless pressure monitoring device is 

used, or $10,000 per PRD if a more substantial flow monitoring 

device is needed. The commenter estimated the cost for its three 

facilities with 393 total PRD would range from $1,965,000 to 

$3,930,000 to retrofit. A third commenter estimated a cost of 

$10,000 to retrofit each PRD, accounting for installation and 

integration into the process control system. With approximately 

200 PRD at a facility, the commenter estimated a total cost of 

$2,000,000. One commenter also noted that if the EPA is 

requesting pressure switches between the rupture discs and the 

safety valves, this is “relatively” easy to accomplish because 

it would require the instrument, communication wiring, and a 

small amount of piping. This commenter also requested that the

EPA make it clearer whether flow indication or pressure 

indication is required in the proposed rule. Additionally, one 

commenter stated that multiple systems for release indication 

already exist within PVC operations.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 237 of 511

One commenter expressed concern about bypass flow indicator 

costs. The commenter stated that a conservative estimate to 

install bypass flow indicators is similar to that for flow 

indication on PRD, approximately $5,000 per open ended line. 

Considering there are hundreds of such lines, the commenter 

indicated that installation cost could exceed $1,000,000 per 

facility.

Response: The EPA maintains that the capital cost estimate 

of $188,900 and annual cost estimate of $26,900 per facility is 

appropriate. Although commenters provided cost estimates for 

particular facilities, costs provided in the comment letters 

were general in nature, and the commenters did not provide 

documentation or detailed cost analyses such that the provided 

estimates could be reviewed. Therefore, we must estimate costs 

for all facilities using a consistent methodology which is based 

on data collected by the EPA. We developed our cost estimate for 

electronic PRD monitoring systems using the “Proposed Amended 

Rule 1173 – Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and 

Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical 

Plants,” from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 

Other commenters have stated that most PVC plants “typically 

have rupture discs installed below relief valves that discharge 

to the atmosphere, and monitor the space between the rupture 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 238 of 511

disc and the PRD for leaks on a routine basis using a local 

pressure indicator and log this information for safety 

purposes.” The EPA maintains that a facility must use a monitor 

to indicate an emission release to the atmosphere; the type of 

indicator is left to the facility.

Comment: Several commenters took issue with the cost 

estimates related to resin stripping. The commenters stated that

current technology will not allow facilities to meet the resin 

limits and indicated that it will be necessary to develop new 

technology and the associated costs will be much greater than 

the current EPA stripped resin cost estimate. One commenter 

stated that millions of dollars will be required to develop the 

technology and install equipment. Commenters contended that 

improvements in PVC resin stripping beyond that which can be 

achieved to meet new MACT floor HAP concentrations are not 

feasible due to thermal degradation of PVC resins with elevated 

heat histories (combination of higher temperatures and residence 

times). One commenter added that steam is one of many components 

in the resin stripping process, but it cannot be used as the 

sole or primary control technique without seriously degrading 

the resin product. Commenters indicated that some types and 

grades of resin are sensitive to heat history such as that 

incurred by steam stripping and that color and heat stability 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 239 of 511

can be negatively impacted by excess heat history. Several 

commenters disagreed with the EPA’s conclusion that PVCPU would 

only need to use additional steam in existing equipment to strip 

resin to comply with the proposed vinyl chloride and total HAP 

emission limits. Commenters also indicated that the 

effectiveness of certain types of stripping technologies is not 

increased by the addition of steam above energy balance 

requirements. Another commenter added that PVC resins, some 

types and grades more than others, are sensitive to heat such as 

that incurred by steam stripping. One commenter stated that the 

EPA offered no substantiation for the claim that more steam in 

existing equipment would provide for anything more than 

negligible reductions in vinyl chloride and HAP levels in 

stripped resin. The commenter added that two of the major 

licensors of PVC resin stripping technology have said they would 

not guarantee new equipment, let alone existing equipment, could 

meet the proposed limit of 0.48 ppmw of vinyl chloride for all 

resins. Commenters indicated that for some PVC grades, a 

significant column retrofit or replacement would be necessary to 

meet more stringent resin limits.

Response: For the final rule, we revised the methodology 

used to estimate cost impacts for stripped resin based on the 

comments and additional cost data provided by commenters. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 240 of 511

the proposed rule, costs of affected sources meeting the 

proposed concentration standards for stripped resins were 

estimated by calculating the amount of additional steam required 

to strip vinyl chloride and total HAP to the proposed 

concentration standards. Based on comments and information 

provided by commenters, we agree that costing additional steam 

may not be the appropriate control technique to meet the 

stripped resin limits. For the final rule, we estimated costs of 

affected sources demonstrating compliance with the final 

stripped resin concentration standards by calculating the cost 

of installing a new resin stripper, based on information 

provided by commenters. We did not include annual costs other 

than the amortized capital investment since affected sources 

must currently pay for the operation and maintenance of their 

current resin strippers. Additionally, we have revised MACT 

floor calculations as discussed in Section V.E.2 of this

preamble. The revised MACT floor and impacts analyses show that 

one facility will not be able to meet the final limits. Based on 

information received during the public comment period, we

estimate the one facility not able to meet the final limits will 

be required to install a new resin stripper with a total capital 

cost of $10 million and a total incremental annual cost of 

$944,000 per year.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 241 of 511

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the 

costs imposed by wastewater compliance requirements. One 

commenter contended that requiring monthly sampling for HAP in 

wastewater will impose undue hardship on facilities when they 

are required to perform continuous monitoring of stripper 

operating levels as well. This commenter estimated an additional 

$65,000 per year from the monthly sampling. Another commenter 

stated that due to the low wastewater vinyl chloride limit, the 

cost for controls will be much higher. The commenter added that 

simply adding steam will be insufficient and that it will be 

necessary to replace the stripper at a cost of $3,400,000 with 

annual operating costs of $636,000. One commenter recommended 

that the HAP control requirements (testing, sampling, etc.) 

should be removed from the wastewater rule since no emission 

benefit is achieved.

Response: Similar to our decision for stripped resins in

the final rule, we have removed all requirements for continuous 

parametric monitoring of wastewater strippers. The requirements 

to conduct periodic sampling for vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP are sufficient to assure compliance 

with the stripped resin limits. We have also established a 

revised limit for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP from 

process wastewater. Monthly sampling and analysis for total non-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 242 of 511

vinyl chloride organic HAP is necessary to ensure that the 

limits are being met on a continuous basis. We have also 

substantially reduced the burden on facilities by only requiring 

re-analysis of untreated streams once per year to ensure that 

those streams are below the process wastewater limits and that 

they do not require treatment. These changes have significantly 

reduced the burden of the final rule.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the 

economic ramifications of the proposed rule to PVC producers and 

consumers. The commenters stated that the EPA did not adequately 

quantify the effect to the entire PVC supply chain when 

considering the rule and that as a result many hardships and 

changes will occur. Commenters contended that impacts will be 

cascaded down the supply chain and increase cost of doing 

business. One commenter encouraged the agency to review and 

carefully consider these impacts in light of the Obama 

Administration’s Executive Order #13563, which calls for review 

and revision of regulations that stifle job creation and 

economic growth. . 

K. Economic Impacts

Commenters argued the PVC MACT will impact a company’s 

competitiveness in the global market, where overseas PVC 

producers are not subject to such stringent regulations. One 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 243 of 511

commenter expressed concern with the impact on construction of 

new plants; the proposed PVC rule will pose a significant 

deterrent to any company that considers citing new or 

reconstructed PVC manufacturing in the United States causing 

additional harm to the economy. Several commenters expressed 

concern that if enacted without significant revision, the PVC 

rule will result in the closure of several plants in the U.S.

One commenter representing the chlor-alkali industry 

provided an example of how the PVC rule will impact related 

industries. The commenter stated that as currently proposed

compliance by U.S. PVC manufacturing facilities with the MACT 

will cause a 4-percent - 8-percent reduction in demand in the 

domestic chlorine market. Based on average industry pending 

patterns and labor-output ratios, in total, between 3,300 and 

6,600 jobs are at risk.

Commenters expressed concern regarding the economic impacts 

to several industries, including: the wall covering industry, 

the vinyl flooring industry, resilient flooring operations, pipe 

applications, and the vinyl siding products industry.

Several commenters contended that the PVC rule would result 

in loss of performance characteristics and cost increases due to 

discontinuation and substitution of a different quality or type 

of resin for a previously formulated material, engineering 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 244 of 511

changes, such as retooling or the necessary investment in new or 

replacement equipment due to the different types or qualities of 

resin and different formulations, and loss of time as new 

formulations may take years to develop and refine for their 

intended application. The commenters contended that over 100 

types and grades of PVC resins will be affected resulting in 

significant impact on how compounders, converters and 

fabricators operate, potentially changing product performance or 

raising costs. Other Two commenters stated that the net cost to 

consumers in the United States and Canada for the substitution 

of alternative materials for the PVC-based products that they 

currently use would be almost $17.7 billion dollars per year, 

plus an additional $5.6 billion in new investment to manufacture 

the incremental volume of substitute material and an associated 

$2.8 billion per year in capital recovery charges (Details for 

numbers are in the document, The Economic Benefits of Polyvinyl 

Chloride in the United States and Canada, released by the 

American Chemistry Council and The Vinyl Institute in 2008). 

Several commenters expressed concern that imposing overly 

stringent requirements on PVC resin manufacturers will 

significantly increase imports from foreign sources and result 

in less domestic competition.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 245 of 511

Response: The final rule contains several revisions that 

reduce the annual cost of the final rules by more than 75 

percent from proposal ($19.7 million per year at proposal to 

$4.1 million per year for the final rules, for major and area 

sources combined). These revisions are discussed in Section VI

of this preamble. For the reasons described above, we have 

revised subcategories and the MACT floor calculation for 

stripped resins resulting in revised limits for stripped resins. 

These changes result in stripped resin limits that are 

achievable by 15 out of 16 sources without installation of 

additional controls. Based on information received during the 

public comment period, the EPA estimates the one facility not 

able to meet the final stripped resin limits for major sources 

will be required to install a new resin stripper with a total 

capital cost of $10 million and an incremental annual cost of 

$944,000 per year. As a result, the final rule does not impose a 

significant burden on the source category as a whole. The 

commenters also did not supply any data or analysis to justify 

their assertions regarding potential plant closures, negative 

employment impacts, reduction in demand for chlorine, negative 

effects on the PVC supply chain, possible increases in imports

or other economic harm. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 246 of 511

Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the lack of 

consideration given to small businesses. The commenter stated 

that the EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis identified only eight 

companies affected by the proposed rule. The commenter added 

that because all eight of these companies have more than 1,500 

employees and annual revenues above $2 billion, the EPA 

certified the proposed rule and declared no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared by the agency. 

However, the commenter contended, the EPA did not host any 

“SBREFA panels” prior to reaching this conclusion, preventing 

the small business community from providing relevant input on 

the proposed rule’s impacts. The commenter stated that there 

will be higher costs due to the PVC MACT which could be passed 

along the supply chain in the form of higher prices to 

customers, many of whom may be small businesses and less able to 

absorb regulation-induced price increases. The commenter 

concluded that the EPA should amend its analysis to investigate

the secondary effect of the regulation on small businesses down 

the supply chain.

Response: The analysis of impacts on small entities called 

for by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), is 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 247 of 511

to cover small entities directly affected by a rule. The RFA 

does not require indirect or secondary impacts to be included in 

a small entity analysis. This is consistent with the EPA’s 

interpretation of the RFA as amended by SBREFA. Only rules that 

will have a direct significant adverse economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities that are subject to the 

rule require an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) (see 5 U.S.C. 

sections 603-605).

L. Affirmative defense

Comment: Several commenters opposed the EPA’s affirmative 

defense requirements. One commenter contended it is unlawful and 

arbitrary because, although the EPA has eliminated its 

compliance exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction, the agency’s final rule includes an “affirmative 

defense to penalties that purports to bar courts from imposing 

any penalties on sources that violate their emission standards 

during a malfunction and satisfy certain agency created 

conditions related to preventing malfunctions and controlling 

malfunction emissions.” This commenter contended that in this 

proposal, the EPA acts outside of its delegated authority to 

limit civil penalties available in citizen suits or its own 

enforcement actions, and the proposal will impermissibly chill 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 248 of 511

citizen participation and the ability to win an effective, 

deterrent remedy in CAA enforcement actions. The commenter added 

that the affirmative defense would likely be used on a routine 

basis by polluters seeking to avoid penalties, imposing a 

technical burden on citizens seeking civil penalties against 

polluters.

Another commenter opposed incorporating affirmative defense 

penalties into regulations. The commenter stated that the EPA 

has discretion to decide what cases to prosecute, to consider 

settlements and to request civil penalties in a case-by-case 

manner, as long as it acts consistent with the CAA to protect 

clean air as its top priority and, thus, the commenter believes 

that promulgating this affirmative defense will allow polluters 

to claim that any violation of the standard is due to a 

malfunction in order to evade the requirements. 

Another commenter requested that if affirmative defense is 

promulgated, the EPA specify the amount of compensatory damages 

should apply to each malfunction, modify the rule so that 

affirmative defense cannot be used by a specific facility or 

company more than once within a set period of time, and require 

public reporting of malfunctions or emissions exceedances.

Response: The EPA included an affirmative defense in the 

final rule in an attempt to balance a tension inherent in many 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 249 of 511

types of air regulation to ensure adequate compliance, while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis.” 42 U.S.C. §7602(k) (defining “emission limitation and 

emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that CAA section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also caselaw indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 

practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

District of Columbia Circuit acknowledged that in setting 

standards under CAA section 111 “variant provisions” such as 

provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the 

reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 250 of 511

does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently 

in force.” See also, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 

486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such 

as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments calls into 

question the relevance of these cases today, they support the

EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of 

flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply 

provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions 

that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By 

incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its 

approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the 

Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when 

regulating “upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” 

Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). 

But, see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 

(D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is 

adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the 

flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are 

“continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. §7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the 

standard as a whole. EPA is not adopting commenters’ suggestion 

with respect to compensatory damages or limits on the frequency 

of use of the affirmative defense. It is not clear that EPA has 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 251 of 511

authority to require the automatic imposition of compensatory 

damages and even if such authority exists, EPA does not think 

automatic imposition of damages is appropriate. Ensuring that 

malfunctions do not recur can be handled through imposition of

appropriate injunctive relief. In addition, EPA’s view is that 

it would not be appropriate to limit a source’s ability to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense to one time over a 

specified period of time such as 10 years given that the 

affirmative defense is only available when the source could not 

have prevented the excess emissions. With respect to commenters’ 

suggested reporting requirements, the reporting requirements in 

the rule promulgated today already require malfunction reporting 

and the affirmative defense provisions require that parties 

choosing to assert the affirmative defense meet additional 

malfunction reporting requirements. Any such reports submitted 

to EPA are publicly available pursuant to CAA section 114.

M. Beyond-the-Floor Analyses

At proposal, we determined that the control technologies 

that would be needed to achieve the proposed MACT floor levels 

for process vents are generally the most effective controls 

available for reducing vinyl chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/CDF and 

we estimated the costs for those technologies for facilities 

that did not meet the proposed limits for process vents. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 252 of 511

Furthermore, at proposal, we did not identify any beyond-thefloor options for process vents. For the final rule, as a 

beyond-the-floor option for process vents (i.e., PVC-only and 

PVC-combined process vents), we assessed the costs and emission 

reductions for existing major source facilities to meet the new 

source limits for both process vent subcategories by using

enhanced vinyl chloride recovery (via an upgraded refrigerated 

condenser). Based on the resulting analysis of the cost 

effectiveness, we determined it is not appropriate to go beyondthe-floor for either subcategory of process vents at existing 

sources. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised 

Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.

For stripped resin at existing and new major sources, we 

analyzed the same beyond-the-floor option as at proposal, and 

determined it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor for 

stripped resin at existing and new major sources considering the 

cost and emission reductions of this option. 

For equipment leaks, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option 

at existing sources of complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU 

level 2, instead of the MACT floor level of control, compliance 

with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. Based on the results of the 

analysis, which are presented in Tables 16 and 18 of this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 253 of 511

preamble, we determined that it is appropriate that MACT for 

equipment leaks at existing and new major sources require

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU level 2, considering 

the cost and emission reductions of this option. The MACT floor 

level of control for new sources, compliance with 40 CFR part 

63, subpart UU level 2, was identified as the most effective 

control of emissions from equipment leaks. Therefore, no beyondthe-floor HAP emission reduction approaches were identified for 

equipment leaks at new major sources. This analysis is discussed 

in Section VI.A and VI.B of this preamble and in the memorandum, 

Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.

For heat exchange systems, we determined that the final 

leak action level and monitoring interval are generally the most 

effective LDAR program to control emissions from heat exchange 

systems. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor options were identified 

for heat exchange systems at existing or new major sources. 

At proposal and for the final rule, we determined it is 

appropriate for storage vessels at existing and new major 

sources meeting specific vapor pressure and storage capacity 

parameters specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb to comply 

with the control requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW as a 

beyond-the-floor control considering cost and emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 254 of 511

reductions. This analysis is discussed in Section VI.A and VI.B

of this preamble and in the memorandum, Revised Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) 

Production Source Category.

At proposal, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor option for 

wastewater of treating streams with HAP concentration greater 

than 1,000 ppmw (of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Table 9 HAP), and 

annual average flow rates greater than 10 liters per minute. In 

the final rule, we determined the MACT floor level of control 

for wastewater to includes concentration limits for total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP. Consequently, we analyzed a 

different beyond-the-floor options for wastewater, requiring all 

currently uncontrolled process wastewater (e.g., wastewater from 

scrubbers and heat exchange systems) to be conveyed to, and 

treated by, a wastewater stripping unit. Based on the results of 

this analysis, we determined it is not appropriate to go beyondthe-floor for wastewater at existing and new major sources 

considering the cost and emission reductions of this option. 

This analysis is discussed in the memorandum, Revised Beyondthe-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

(PVC) Production Source Category.

At proposal, we did not identify any beyond-the-floor 

options for gasholders; however, we did solicit comments on 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 255 of 511

control options for gasholders. Based on the information 

provided in comments, for the final rule, we analyzed a beyondthe-floor option of minimizing fugitive emissions by requiring 

the use of floating objects on the surface of the water seal at 

existing and new sources. Based on the results of the analysis, 

which are presented in Tables 16 and 18 of this preamble, we 

determined that it is appropriate to require gasholders at 

existing and new major sources reduce their fugitive emissions 

by using floating objects on the surface of the water seal as a 

beyond-the-floor control, considering cost and emission 

reductions. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum,

Revised Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.

VI. Impacts of the Final PVC Rules

The impacts presented in this section include the impacts 

for PVC production facilities to comply with the final rules,

and with the requirements of other subparts referenced by the 

final rules.

We have estimated the potential emission reductions that 

are expected to be realized through implementation of the final

rules. Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions estimated for existing major sources. The table shows 

A. What are the air impacts?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 256 of 511

the emission reductions for each pollutant and emission point. 

Table 18 of this preamble also summarizes the emission 

reductions for the beyond the floor options selected for 

existing major sources (i.e., control of equipment leaks, 

storage vessels and gasholders). The major source analysis is 

documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs and Emission 

Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category. Table 19 of this 

preamble summarizes the emission reductions estimated for 

existing area sources complying with GACT. The area source 

analysis is documented in the memorandum, Generally Achievable 

Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Area Sources in the

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source 

Category

Table 18. Emission Reductions of the Final PVC and Copolymers 

Production Standards for Major Sources

. Both memoranda are available in the docket. We do not 

project any new major or area sources to be constructed in the 

five years following promulgation of the final rules; no 

emission reductions were calculated for new sources. The 

memoranda document emission reductions associated with model 

major and area sources complying with the new source 

requirements.

Emission Point Pollutant Emission Reductions (tpy)

Vinyl 

Chloride

Total HAP CDD/CDF 

(TEQ)

HCl
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 257 of 511

Emission Point Pollutant Emission Reductions (tpy)

Vinyl 

Chloride

Total HAP CDD/CDF 

(TEQ)

HCl

Major sources MACT floor

Process ventsa 0.102 1.93 0.017 g/yr 21.4

Stripped resins 7.58 7.58 0 0

Wastewater 0 0 0 0

Equipment leaks 0 0 0 0

Storage vessels 0 0 0 0

Other emission sources 0 0 0 0

Heat exchange systems 101 101 0 0

Major sources beyond the floor

Equipment leaks 0 85.0 0 0

Storage vessels 0 0 0 0

Other emission 

sources-gasholders 22.0 22.0 0 0

Major Source total 130 217 0.017 g/yr 21.4 a Emission reductions for process vents are stated as total organic HAP; this 

value does not include HCl reductions.

Table 19. Emission Reductions of the Final PVC and Copolymers 

Production Standards for Area Sources

Emission Point Vinyl Chloride 

(tpy)

Dioxin/Furan 

(g/yr) Total HAP (tpy)

Process vents 0 0 0

Heat exchange 

systems 15.1 0 15.1

Stripped resins 0 0 0

Wastewater 0 0 0

Equipment leaks 0 0 9.29

Other emission 

sources

0 0 0

We estimated emission reductions of the final rule for each 

emission point. For all emission points, we first calculated 

emissions at the current level of control for each facility 

(referred to as the baseline level of control), and at the MACT 

level of control selected for major sources and the GACT level 

of control selected for area sources. We calculated emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 258 of 511

reductions as the difference between the final level and 

baseline. 

For process vents at major sources, we calculated baseline 

emissions from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of 

the control devices, and HAP emissions using the final emission 

limits, in combination with the vent stream flow rates measured 

during emission tests.

Major Sources

For stripped resins at major sources, we calculated 

emissions assuming that all the HAP remaining in the resin would 

eventually be emitted from processes downstream of the resin 

stripper. This assumption results in a calculation of the 

potential emissions at the baseline stripped resin concentration 

levels, and final MACT concentration levels. Emissions were 

calculated from the HAP concentration in the stripped resin, and 

the resin production rate.

For wastewater at major sources, we estimated the emissions 

from the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled wastewater 

streams, the maintenance wastewater streams, and in the 

controlled wastewater streams, and the wastewater flow rates or 

generation rates.

For equipment leaks at major sources, we estimated 

emissions for the baseline LDAR program in use at each facility, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 259 of 511

and the final equipment leaks requirements using model equipment 

counts, average emission factors for leaking equipment and 

control efficiencies for LDAR programs developed as part of the 

technology review required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA (see 

Section V.H of this preamble for additional detail). Model 

equipment counts were used because actual equipment counts were 

not collected as part of our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 

information collection request sent to the PVC industry. The 

survey requested information only on regulatory LDAR programs 

currently in place at each facility, and the costs for the 

facility to conduct the LDAR program.

For other emission sources, we estimated baseline emissions 

from gasholders using information provided by industry during 

the comment period. We estimated the emission reductions 

associated with installing floating objects on gasholder water 

seals to reduce emissions of vinyl chloride from those seals, as 

a beyond the floor option, based on additional information 

provided by the PVC industry after the comment period. We 

calculated emissions from reactor openings from information 

provided in responses to our August 21, 2009, CAA section 114 

information collection request provided by affected sources.

We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on 

emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 260 of 511

responses provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from 

heat exchange systems were calculated assuming that, once the 

LDAR program was in effect, emissions would be eliminated due to 

the low leak action level that is being finalized.

For process vents, we calculated emissions from the 

concentration of HAP in the vent stream and the vent gas flow 

rates measured during emission tests. For process vents in the 

PVC-only subcategory, we calculated baseline emissions for the 

one area source in the subcategory from the measured HAP 

concentrations at the outlet of the control device. We did not 

select an option more stringent than the current emission level; 

therefore, there were no emission reductions calculated. For 

process vents in the PVC-combined subcategory, we calculated 

baseline emissions for the one area source in the subcategory 

from the measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the 

control Since the existing PVC-combined area source currently 

meets the GACT standards, we did not calculate a reduction of 

HAP emissions associated with meeting the GACT emission limits.

Area Sources

For stripped resins, emissions were calculated from the HAP 

concentration in the stripped resin, and the resin production 

rate. For the one existing area source in the suspension 

subcategory, we calculated emissions assuming that all the HAP 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 261 of 511

remaining in the resin would eventually be emitted from 

processes downstream of the resin stripper. This assumption 

results in a calculation of the potential emissions at the 

stripped resin concentration levels the affected is currently 

achieving. Since the existing PVC area source in the suspension 

resin subcategory currently meets the GACT standard, no emission 

reductions were calculated. For the one existing area source in 

the bulk resins subcategory, we estimated emissions downstream 

of the resin stripper using emission rates submitted by the 

facility since resin produced by the bulk process does not go 

through downstream drying processes since the resin is in solid 

form after the polymerization process. 

For wastewater at existing area sources, we estimated the 

emissions from the HAP concentration in the uncontrolled 

wastewater streams, the maintenance wastewater streams, and in 

the controlled wastewater streams, and the wastewater flow rates 

or generation rates.

For equipment leaks at existing area sources, we estimated 

emissions for the LDAR program in use at both area sources and 

emissions associated with complying with the GACT option. 

Emissions were calculated using a combination of facility 

provided and model equipment counts, average emission factors 

for leaking equipment and control efficiencies for LDAR programs 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 262 of 511

developed as part of the technology review required by section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA (see Section V.H of this preamble for 

additional detail). Model equipment counts were used for 

equipment types for which counts were not provided by the 

affected sources. The CAA section 114 survey requested 

information only on regulatory LDAR programs currently in place 

at each facility, and the costs for the facility to conduct the 

LDAR program; however, one facility provided some but not all 

equipment counts for which emissions were estimated.

For other emission sources, we calculated emissions from 

reactor openings from information provided in CAA section 114 

survey responses provided by affected sources. The existing PVC 

area sources currently do not operate gasholders; therefore no 

emissions from gasholders were calculated for area sources. 

We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems based on 

emissions information provided in the CAA section 114 survey 

responses provided by affected sources. Emission reductions from 

heat exchange systems were calculated assuming that, once the 

LDAR program was in effect, emissions would be eliminated due to 

the low leak action level that is being finalized.

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources 

to meet the sampling and testing requirements, add the necessary 

B. What are the cost impacts?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 263 of 511

controls, monitoring devices, recordkeeping, and reporting 

procedures to comply with the final rules. Based on this 

analysis, we anticipate an overall total initial investment of 

$17.6 million for major sources and $486 thousand for area 

sources. We anticipate an associated total annual cost of $3.94

million for major sources and $167 thousand for area sources 

(using a discount rate of 7 percent), in 2010 dollars, as shown 

in Table 20 and Table 21 of this preamble. We do not anticipate 

the construction of any new PVCPU in the next 5 years, and, 

therefore, there are no new source cost impacts. Estimated 

impacts of the new area source requirements for a model facility 

are presented in the memoranda, Costs and Emission Reductions of 

the MACT Floor Level of Control for the Promulgated Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category and 

Cost and Emission Reductions of the Area Source Level of Control 

for the Promulgated Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) 

Production Source Category

Table 20. Cost Impacts of the Final PVC and Copolymers 

Production Standards for Existing Major Sources

, which are in the PVC docket.

Emission Point Total Initial Cost 

(million 2010$)a

Total Annual Cost 

(million 2010$/yr)b

Major sources MACT floor

Process vents 3.38 1.72

Stripped resins 10.1 1.13

Wastewater 0.081 0.165

Equipment leaks 2.87 0.469

Storage vessels 0.0165 0.0233

Other emission sources 0.0165 0.0233

Heat exchange systems 0.0466 0.152
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 264 of 511

Major sources beyond the floor

Equipment leaks 1.02 0.238

Storage vessels 0 0

Other emission sourcesgasholders 0.0750 0.0222

Major source total 17.6 3.94

a Total initial costs for facilities include the capital cost of control 

equipment, testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.

b Total annual costs include: annualized capital costs, annual cost to 

operate control equipment, testing and monitoring costs, recordkeeping and 

reporting costs, and repair costs.

Table 21. Cost Impacts of the Final PVC and Copolymers 

Production Standards for Existing PVC Area Sources

Emission Point Total Initial 

Cost (million$)

Total Annual 

Cost (million$)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton)

Process vents 0.0963a 0.0218b -c

Heat exchange 

systems 0.00743 0.0255 1,139

Resins 0.00940 0.0212 -c

Wastewater 0.00819 0.00198 -c

Equipment leaksd 0.360 0.0725 7,807

Other emission 

sources 0.00220 0.00311 -c

Storage vessels 0.00220 0.00311 -c

Area source 

total 0.486 0.167 -c

a Total initial cost for process vents includes initial recordkeeping and 

reporting costs (which include year 1 annual costs) and initial process vent 

testing. b Total annual costs for process vents include process vent testing and annual 

recordkeeping and reporting (starting in year 2). Process vent testing is 

required every 5 years following the initial test; therefore, annual testing 

costs have been divided by 5 to distribute costs evenly across the 5- year 

period. c Standard does not result in emission reductions; therefore, a cost 

effectiveness is not applicable. d Total initial costs for equipment leaks include capital costs associated 

with complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart, the cost of an electronic 

pressure relief device (PRD) monitoring system and the initial recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. Annual costs include operation of the PRD 

monitoring system, complying with subpart UU and annual recordkeeping and 

reporting costs. Emissions and reductions of VOC, volatile hazardous air 

pollutants (VHAP), and organic HAP, categorized as total HAP. Emissions, 

reductions and associated costs referenced from memorandum - Cindy Hancy, 

RTI, to Jodi Howard, EPA/OAQPS, dated November 10, 2011, subject: Technology 

Review for Equipment Leaks (draft format). Baseline emissions, reductions 

and costs are adjusted based on equipment counts provided by CertainTeed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 265 of 511

For major sources, we calculated costs to meet the final 

level of control for each emission point. For process vents, we 

estimated costs to meet the final level of control for PVCPU 

that do not currently meet the final emission limit, based on 

reported data. For such PVCPU that currently use thermal 

oxidizers in combination with acid-gas scrubbers, we estimate 

the cost of compliance through the use of enhanced vinyl 

chloride recovery using a refrigerated condenser to reduce the 

quantity of vinyl chloride combusted to meet the vinyl chloride, 

HCl, CDD/CDF and THC. For PVCPU that currently use an absorber 

for vinyl chloride recovery, cost calculations are based on 

routing the vent gas from the absorber to a refrigerated 

condenser for enhanced organic HAP recovery. Costs calculations 

also include capital and annual costs for testing and monitoring 

of vinyl chloride, HCl, THC and CDD/CDF. 

Major Sources

For PVCPU not currently meeting the final stripped resin 

limits, costs to meet the final level of control are based on 

industry estimates for a new resin stripper resulting in greater 

removal of vinyl chloride and total HAP from the resin. Testing 

and monitoring costs are also included in the costs to meet the 

final level of control. All PVCPU are expected to meet the final 

wastewater stripper outlet concentration limit. Therefore, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 266 of 511

initial and annual costs consist of additional testing and 

monitoring required to demonstrate compliance with the final 

emission standards.

For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by

the EPA were applied to each PVCPU that did not already meet the 

final level of control (i.e.

For other emission sources, we calculated costs for 

complying with the final, beyond the floor, level of control for 

gasholders. Capital cost estimates were based on data provided 

by industry at the request of the EPA following the comment 

period. Annual cost estimates were based on standard factors for 

costs such as amortization, maintenance, taxes and 

administration.

, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU). The 

cost estimates include additional capital and annual cost 

associated with facilities switching from compliance with 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart V to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We estimated 

additional capital and annual costs for an electronic PRD 

indicator, based on data collected for other EPA projects. 

We calculated costs for complying with the final level for 

heat exchange systems, based on information collected for other 

EPA projects. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Revised Costs 

and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 267 of 511

Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is 

available in the docket.

For existing area sources, we calculated costs to meet the 

final level of control for each emission point. For each 

emission point, we estimated costs of the major source testing, 

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. 

Area Sources

For process vents in the PVC-only and PVC-combined 

subcategories, we did not select an option more stringent than 

the current emission level; therefore, there were no additional

costs calculated. 

For the one existing area source in the suspension 

subcategory and the one existing area source in the bulk resins 

subcategory, we did not calculate any additional costs since 

both facilities meet the promulgated GACT standards. 

For wastewater at existing area sources, we did not 

estimate any additional costs since both facilities meet the 

promulgated GACT standards. 

For other emission sources, we did not estimate any 

additional costs since neither of the existing PVC area sources 

operate a gasholder. 

For equipment leaks, cost estimates previously developed by 

the EPA were applied to the existing area source PVCPU. The cost 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 268 of 511

estimates include additional capital and annual cost associated 

with the facility switching from compliance with 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We estimated additional

capital and annual costs for a PRD, based on data collected for 

other EPA projects. 

We calculated costs for complying with the final level of 

control for heat exchange systems, based on information 

collected for other EPA projects. The analysis is documented in 

the memorandum, Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) 

Analysis for Area Sources in the Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in 

the PVC docket.

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

energy impacts?

We anticipate major affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the final emission limits. The 

energy impacts associated with meeting the final emission limits 

would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run 

added or improved air pollution control devices. By our 

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 5,300 megawatt-hours 

per year would be required for the additional and improved 

control devices.

Major Sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 269 of 511

We anticipate secondary air impacts from major sources 

adding controls to meet the standards. The combustion of fuel 

needed to generate additional electricity would yield slight 

increases in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions. Since NOx and SO2 emissions and electric generating 

units are covered by capped emissions trading programs, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for these 

pollutants for this rule from additional electricity demand. The 

analyses are documented in the memorandum, Revised Secondary 

Impacts for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)

Production Source Category, available in the docket.

We do not anticipate the area affected sources will need to 

apply any additional controls with additional electricity or 

fuel requirements associated with meeting the final emission 

limits. Therefore, we have not estimated any additional 

secondary electricity generation of air impacts for area 

sources.

Area Sources

We performed an economic impact analysis for PVC consumers 

and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs 

estimated for this final rule. The impacts to producers affected 

by this final rule are annualized costs of less than 0.7 percent 

D. What are the economic impacts of the final standards?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 270 of 511

of their revenues, using the most current year available for 

revenue data. Demand and supply of PVC product is inelastic 

according to data included in the Economic Impact Analysis.

Based on this information, one can conclude that demand will 

respond less than 1:1 with a change in output price, and that 

supply is inelastic (i.e., will respond less than 1:1) with a 

change in output price. Hence, based on these results and data, 

the overall economic impact of this final rule on the affected 

industries and their consumers should be low. For more 

information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for 

the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer NESHAP

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

that is in the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it 

raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order

12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 271 of 511

In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and emissions impacts associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in [Cost and Impacts of the PVC and 

Copolymers Final Standard], in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-

0037. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this 

action and the analysis is briefly summarized in Section VI.B of 

this preamble.

The information collection requirements in this final rule 

have been submitted for approval to OMB under the 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq

The information requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 

all operators subject to national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 

submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B.

. The information 

collection requirements are not enforceable until the OMB

approves them.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 272 of 511

The final rule requires maintenance inspections of the 

control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those 

required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping 

requirements require only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. The information collection activities in 

this ICR include the following: Performance tests, wastewater 

sampling, resin sampling, LDAR monitoring, heat exchanger 

monitoring, PRD monitoring, operating parameter monitoring, 

preparation of a site-specific monitoring plan, monitoring and 

inspection, one-time and periodic reports and the maintenance of 

records. Some information collection activities included in the 

NESHAP may occur within the first 3 years, and are presented in 

this burden estimate, but may not occur until 4 or 5 years 

following promulgation of the final rule for some affected 

sources. To be conservative in our estimate, the burden for 

these items is included in this ICR. An initial notification is 

required to notify the Administrator of the applicability of 

this subpart, and to identify storage vessels, process vents, 

stripped resin, equipment leaks, wastewater, heat exchange 

systems, and other emission sources subject to this subpart. A 

notification of performance test must be submitted, and a sitespecific test plan written for the performance test, along with 

a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance test, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 273 of 511

owner or operator must submit a notification of compliance 

status that documents the performance test and the values for 

the operating parameters. A periodic report submitted every 6

months documents the values for the operating parameters and 

deviations; a notification of inspection of vessels and related 

inspection records; leaking and monitoring information for 

equipment leaks; and leaking and monitoring data for heat 

exchangers, if greater than leak definition. Owners or operators 

of PVC facilities are required to keep records of certain 

parameters and information for a period of 5 years. The annual 

testing, annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden 

for this collection for major sources (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to 

be $1.8 million. This includes 3,200 labor hours per year at a 

total labor cost of $0.3 million per year, and total non-labor 

capital costs of $2.8 million per year. The annual testing, 

annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 

collection for area sources (averaged over the first 3 years 

after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 

$323 thousand. This includes 432 labor hours per year at a total 

labor cost of $41 thousand per year, and total non-labor capital 

costs of $129 thousand per year. These estimates include initial 

and annual performance tests, conducting and documenting 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 274 of 511

semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance inspections, 

developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and recordkeeping. 

Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the cost 

estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in 

Section VI.B of this preamble. The total burden for the federal

government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective 

date of the standard) for major sources is estimated to be 809

hours per year, at a total labor cost of $37,281 per year. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the standard) for area 

sources is estimated to be 160 hours per year, at a total labor 

cost of $7,324 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts DDDDDD and HHHHHHH. An affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can 

demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 

satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 

CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and not caused by poor maintenance or careless operation) and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 275 of 511

where the source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. 

In addition, the source must meet certain notification and 

reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a 

written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the 

Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and 

requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA 

considered whether there might be any burden associated with the 

notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. While 

recognizing that any such burdens are only incurred if there has 

been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense. The PVC industry is currently required to 

comply with the part 61 NESHAP requirement for releases from 

pressure relief valves and reactor manual vent valves, which 

does not allow a discharge into the atmosphere from these 

valves, except during an emergency. An emergency discharge means 

a “discharge which could not have been avoided by taking 

measures to prevent the discharge.” The owners or operators 

must, within 10 days of any release from a pressure relief valve 

or a reactor manual vent valve, submit a report to the 

Administrator. The report must include the “nature and cause of 

discharge, the date and time of the discharge, the approximate 

total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the method used 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 276 of 511

for determining the vinyl chloride loss, the action that was 

taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent 

future discharges.” The costs for these reports are already 

accounted for in the ICR burden estimate. Therefore, the EPA 

estimates that there would be no additional costs for sources 

that choose to take advantage of the affirmative defense for 

malfunctions since it is already required for compliance with 

the rule. However, there may be other malfunctions that are not 

currently regulated under the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt a 

source to take advantage of an affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source (for those not 

already regulated under the part 61 NESHAP), the EPA is 

including in the ICR the notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and records, including the root 

cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview 

plant employees, and document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. 

The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 277 of 511

and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 

illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses 

to take advantage of the affirmative defense. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal 

Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 

information collection requirements contained in this final 

rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 278 of 511

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business, as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule 

on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The industry in which the affected entities are in is 

NAICS 325211 (Polyvinyl chemical resins manufacturing). The SBA 

small business size definition for this industry is 750 

employees or less for parent entities. This final rule will not 

impose any requirements on small entities. To the EPA’s 

knowledge, there are no small entities subject to the final 

rule.

This action does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 279 of 511

in any one year. The total annualized cost of this rule is 

estimated to be no more than $4.1 million (2010$) in any one 

year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA, because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This rule impacts only PVC production facilities, 

and, thus, does not impact small governments uniquely or 

significantly. 

The action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. The final rule imposes requirements on owners and 

operators of specified major and area sources, and not on State 

or local governments. There are no PVC production facilities 

owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 280 of 511

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The 

final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of 

specified area sources, and not tribal governments. There are no 

PVC production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it is based solely on technology 

performance.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 

is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that 

the requirements in this final action would cause most PVCPU to 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 281 of 511

modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g.

Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting 

from this final action, the EPA does not expect any significant 

price increase for any energy type. The cost of energy 

distribution should not be affected at all by this final action 

since the action would not affect energy distribution 

facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the import of 

foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that may 

occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant. 

We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse 

energy effects associated with this final action, they would be 

minimal. 

, increase 

the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate 

new control devices, resulting in approximately 92,000 megawatthours per year of additional electricity being used.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 282 of 511

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 

proposes to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses

No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 

2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 107, RCRA SW-846, PS-8, PS-9, and the TCEQ 

Modified El Paso Method.

, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This 

standard is available from the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) 

of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical 

procedures that were similar to the EPA’s reference method, the 

EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a 

potential equivalent method. All potential standards were 

reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. 

This review requires significant method validation data that 

meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting 

alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy 

equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA 

may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional 

information is available for particular VCS. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 283 of 511

The search identified 17 other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 

17 candidate VCS (ASTM D3154-00 (2006), ASTM D3464-96 (2007), 

ASTM D3796-90 (2004), ISO 10780:1994, ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 

12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA 

Z223.2-M86 (1999), NIOSH Method 2010, Amines, Aliphatic, ASTM 

D6060-96 (2001), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-1.2.3 (1998), ASTM 

D6735-01, ASTM D4855-97 (2002)) identified for measuring 

emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important 

technical and policy considerations. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 284 of 511

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations,

because it increases the level of environmental protection for 

all affected populations without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or low-income population. 

An analysis of demographic data shows that the average 

percentage of minorities, percentages of the population below 

the poverty level, and the percentages of the population 17 

years old and younger, in close proximity to the sources, are 

similar to the national averages, with percentage differences of 

3, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-mile radius of concern. 

These differences in the absolute number of percentage points 

from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent, 14.4-percent, 

and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority populations, 

populations below the poverty level, and the percentages of the 

population 17 years old and younger, respectively.

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the EPA used census data at 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 285 of 511

the block group level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, such 

that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these 

sources. In this approach, the EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the 

expected emission reductions from this rule. The review 

identified those census block groups with centroids within a 

circular distance of a 0.5, 3 and 5 miles of affected sources,

and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition 

(e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block 

groups. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) 

has been used in other demographic analyses focused on areas 

around potential sources.4,5,6,7

 

4

U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living 

Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

There was only one census block 

group with its centroid within 0.5 miles of any source affected 

by the final rule. The EPA’s demographic analysis has shown that 

these areas, in aggregate, have similar proportions of American 

Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics and “Other and Multiracial” populations to the national average. The analysis also 

5

Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in 

Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 6

Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze 

Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297. 7

Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 

1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 286 of 511

showed that these areas, in aggregate, had similar proportions 

of families with incomes below the poverty level as the national 

average, and similar populations of children 17 years of age and 

younger.8

The EPA developed a communication and outreach strategy to 

ensure that interested communities have access to this final

rule, are aware of its content, and had an opportunity to 

comment during the comment period. The EPA also ensured that 

interested communities had an opportunity to comment during the 

comment period. During the comment period, the EPA publicized

the rulemaking via environmental justice newsletters, Tribal 

newsletters, environmental justice listservs and the Internet, 

including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also 

conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities,

as appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing 

general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g.

 

8

The results of the demographic analysis are presented in Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, September 2010, a copy of 

which is available in the docket.

, why is this important for 

my community) for environmental justice community groups, and 

conducting conference calls with interested communities. In 

addition, state and federal permitting requirements will provide 

State and local governments, and members of affected communities 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 287 of 511

the opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by the final 

rule.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,

K. Congressional Review Act

et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final rule and other 

required information to the United States Senate, the United 

States House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 

not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will 

be effective [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER].
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production--Page 288 of 511

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

______________________

Dated: 

_______________________

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 289 of 511

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended]

.

2. Section 63.14 is amended by:

a. Adding paragraphs (b)(28), (b)(54), and (b)(69).

b. Revising paragraph (c)(3).

c. Revising paragraph (i)(1).

d. Revising paragraph (n)(1).

e. Adding paragraphs (p)(8) through (p)(11) to read as 

follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(28) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2004), Standards Test Method 

for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 

Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectometry, IBR approved for 

§§60.485(g)(5), 60.485a(g)(5), 63.772(a)(1)(ii), 

63.2354(b)(3)(i), 63.2354(b)(3)(ii), 63.2354(b)(3)(ii)(A), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 290 of 511

63.2351(b)(3)(ii)(B) and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this 

part.

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method for Determination 

of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL 

and table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part as specified in the 

subpart and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.

(69) ASTM D2879–10 Standard Test Method for Vapor PressureTemperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature 

of Liquids by Isoteniscope, IBR approved for §63.12005.

(c) * * *

(3) API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Specifications 

(MPMS) Chapter 19.2, Evaporative Loss From Floating-Roof Tanks 

(formerly API Publications 2517 and 2519), First Edition, April 

1997, IBR approved for §63.1251 of subpart GGG of this part and 

§63.12005.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for 

§§63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 

63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 291 of 511

63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 

63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 

63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 

63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 

63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), 63.11945(d)(2), table 5 to subpart DDDDD 

of this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part and table 4 

to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(1) “Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 

Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 

Sources,” Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, 

prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 

31, 2003, IBR approved for §63.654(c)(1) and (g)(4)(i) of 

subpart CC of this part, and §63.11920(a)(3)(i) of subpart 

HHHHHHH of this part.

* * * * *

(p) * * *

(8) SW-846-8015C, Revision 3, February 2007, Nonhalogenated 

Organics by Gas Chromatography in EPA Publication No. SW-846, 

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 

Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §63.11960(e)(1)(iv), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 292 of 511

§63.11980(a)(2)(iv) and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this 

part.

(9) SW-846-8260B, Revision 3, February 2007, Volatile 

Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS) in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third 

Edition, IBR approved for §63.11960(e)(1)(i), §63.11980(a)(2)(i) 

and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this part.

(10) SW-846-8270D, Revision 4, February 2007, Semivolatile

Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS) in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third 

Edition, IBR approved for §63.11960(e)(1)(ii), 

§63.11980(a)(2)(ii) and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this 

part.

(11) SW-846-8315A, Revision 1, December 1996, Determination 

of Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography 

in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved 

for §63.11960(e)(1)(iii), §63.11980(a)(2)(iii) and table 10 to 

subpart HHHHHHH of this part.

Subpart DDDDDD—[Amended]
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 293 of 511

3. Section 63.11140 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 

through (d) and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as

follows: 

§63.11140 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a) On or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you are subject to this subpart 

if you own or operate a plant specified in §61.61(c) of this 

chapter that produces polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or copolymers and 

is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.

After [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], you are subject to the requirements in this 

subpart if you own or operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and 

copolymers process units (PVCPU), as defined in §63.12005, that 

are located at, or are part of, an area source of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP).

(b) On or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source. The affected source is the 

collection of all equipment and activities in vinyl chloride 

service necessary to produce PVC and copolymers. An affected 

source does not include portions of your PVC and copolymers 

production operations that meet the criteria in §61.60(b) or (c)

of this chapter. After [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 294 of 511

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this subpart applies to each 

polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source.

The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production affected source 

is the facility-wide collection of PVCPUs, storage vessels, heat 

exchange systems, surge control vessels, and wastewater and 

process wastewater treatment systems that are associated with 

producing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers.

(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced 

construction or reconstruction of the affected source before 

October 6, 2006.

(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of 

§63.11142(a), §63.11143(a) and (b), §63.11144(a), and §63.11145 

for existing affected sources.

(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in 

§63.11141(a).

(iii) You must meet the applicable requirements of 

§63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), §63.11144(b), and 

§63.11145 for existing affected sources by the compliance date 

specified in §63.11141(c), after which time you are no longer 

subject to the requirements listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(ii) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 295 of 511

(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction 

or reconstruction of the affected source between October 6, 2006

and May 20, 2011.

(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of 

§63.11142(a), §63.11143(a) and (b), §63.11144(a), and §63.11145 

for new affected sources.

(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in 

§63.11141(b).

(3) If you are a new affected source as specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section that commenced construction or 

reconstruction between October 6, 2006 and May 20, 2011, then 

after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] you are considered an existing affected 

source. 

(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of 

§63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), §63.11144(b), and 

§63.11145 for existing affected sources.

(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in 

§63.11141(d), after which time you are no longer subject to 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(4) An affected source is new if you commenced construction 

or reconstruction of the affected source after May 20, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 296 of 511

(i) You must meet the applicable requirements of 

§63.11142(b) through (f), 63.11143(c), §63.11144(b), and 

§63.11145 for new affected sources.

(ii) You must achieve compliance by the date specified in 

§63.11141(e).

(iii) If components of an existing affected source are 

replaced such that the replacement meets the definition of 

reconstruction in §63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after 

May 20, 2011, then the existing affected source becomes a 

reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards 

for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must comply 

with the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for 

a new affected source upon initial startup of the reconstructed 

source or by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.

(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 

facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air 

Act. After [INSERT DATE OF PUBICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], the requirements of this subpart also do not 

apply to chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in 

§63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw 

materials used in the production of polyvinyl chloride and 

copolymers.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 297 of 511

(d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit 

under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not 

otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 

70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous 

sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of 

this subpart.

(e) After the applicable compliance date specified in 

§63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is 

required to comply with the provisions of this subpart and no 

longer has to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart F.

(f) After the applicable compliance date specified in 

§63.11141(c), (d) or (e), an affected source that is also 

subject to the provisions of other 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 

63 subparts is required to comply with this subpart and any 

other applicable 40 CFR part 60 and part 63 subparts.

4. Section 63.11141 is revised to read as follows:

§63.11141 What are my compliance dates?

(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source as 

specified in §63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance 

with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in 

§63.11140(b)(1)(i) by January 23, 2007.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 298 of 511

(b) If you own or operate a new affected source as 

specified in §63.11140(b)(2), then you must achieve compliance 

with the applicable provisions in this subpart as specified in 

§63.11140(b)(2)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of 

this section.

(1) If you start up a new affected source on or before 

January 23, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions in this subpart not later than January 23, 

2007.

(2) If you start up a new affected source after January 23, 

2007 but before or on May 20, 2011, then you must achieve 

compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of 

your affected source.

(c) If you own or operate an existing affected source as 

specified in §63.11140(b)(1), then you must achieve compliance 

with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in 

§63.11140(b)(1)(iii) by [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(d) If you own or operate an affected source that commenced 

construction or reconstruction between October 6, 2006 and May 

20, 2011, then you must achieve compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart specified in §63.11140(b)(3) by 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 299 of 511

[INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(e) If you own or operate a new affected source as 

specified in §63.11140(b)(4), then you must achieve compliance 

with the applicable provisions in this subpart specified in 

§63.11140(b)(4)(i) by the dates in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section.

(1) If you start up your affected source between May 20, 

2011 and [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions in this subpart not later than [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If you start up your affected source after [INSERT DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then

you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart 

upon startup of your affected source.

5. Section 63.11142 is revised to read as follows: 

Standards and Compliance Requirements

§63.11142 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 

new and existing sources?

(a) You must meet all the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart F, except for 40 CFR 61.62 and 40 CFR 61.63.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 300 of 511

(b) You must comply with each emission limit and standard 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your 

existing affected source, and you must comply with each emission 

limit and standard specified in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to your new affected source.

(c) The emission limits, operating limits and work practice 

standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.

(d) You must demonstrate initial compliance by the dates 

specified in §63.11141.

(e) You must conduct subsequent performance testing 

according to the schedule specified in §63.11905.

(f) You must meet the requirements of the applicable 

sections of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, as specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (19) of this section, except for the 

purposes of complying with this subpart, where the applicable 

sections of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, as specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (19) of this section reference Table 1 

or Table 2 to subpart HHHHHHH, reference is made to Table 1 or 

Table 2 to this subpart.

(1) You must comply with the requirements of §63.11880(b).

(2) You must comply with the requirements of §§63.11890(a) 

through 63.11890(d) and are subject to §63.11895.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 301 of 511

(3) You must comply with the requirements of §63.11896, 

except for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where 

§63.11896 refers to §63.11870(d) of subpart HHHHHHH, reference 

is made to §63.11140(b)(4) of this subpart.

(4) You must comply with the requirements of §63.11900, 

except for the purposes of complying with this subpart, where 

§63.11900 refers to §63.11875 of subpart HHHHHHH, reference is 

made to §63.11141 of this subpart.

(5) You must meet the requirements of §63.11910 for initial 

and continuous compliance for storage vessels.

(6) You must meet the requirements of §63.11915 for 

equipment leaks.

(7) You must meet the requirements of §63.11920 for initial 

and continuous compliance for heat exchange systems.

(8) You must meet the requirements of §63.11925 for initial 

and continuous compliance for process vents.

(9) You must meet the requirements of §63.11930 for closed 

vent systems.

(10) You must meet the requirements of §63.11935 for 

continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and continuous 

parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to demonstrate initial and 

continuous compliance with the emission standards for process 

vents.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 302 of 511

(11) You must meet the requirements of §63.11940 for 

continuous monitoring requirements for control devices required 

to install CPMS to meet the emission limits for process vents.

(12) You must meet the requirements of §63.11945 for 

performance testing requirements for process vents.

(13) You must meet the requirements of §63.11950 for 

emissions calculations to be used for an emission profile by 

process of batch process operations.

(14) You must meet the requirements of §63.11955 for 

initial and continuous compliance requirements for other 

emission sources.

(15) You must meet the requirements of §63.11956 for 

ambient monitoring.

(16) You must meet the requirements of §63.11960 for 

initial and continuous compliance requirements for stripped 

resin.

(17) You must meet the requirements of §63.11965 through 

§63.11980 for general, initial and continuous compliance, test 

methods and calculation procedures for wastewater.

(18) You must meet the notification and reporting 

requirements of §63.11985.

(19) You must meet the recordkeeping requirements of 

§§63.11990 and 63.11995.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 303 of 511

6. Section 63.11143 is revised to read as follows:

Other Requirements and Information

§63.11143 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a) All the provisions in part 61, subpart A of this 

chapter, apply to this subpart.

(b) The provisions in subpart A of this part, applicable to 

this subpart are specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) §63.1(a)(1) through (10).

(2) §63.1(b) except paragraph (b)(3), §63.1(c), and 

§63.1(e).

(c) Section 63.11885 specifies which parts of the General 

Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you.

7. Section 63.11144 is revised to read as follows:

§63.11144 What definitions apply to this subpart?

(a) On and before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the terms used in this subpart 

are defined in the Clean Air Act; §§61.02 and 61.61 of this 

chapter; and §63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions 

of subpart A of this part, as specified in §63.11143(b).

(b) After [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], terms used in this subpart are defined in 

the Clean Air Act; §63.2; and §63.12005.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 304 of 511

8. Section 63.11145 is revised to read as follows:

§63.11145 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the 

U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to a state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency 

has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 

should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or tribal agency within 

your state.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the approval authorities contained in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by 

the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the 

state, local, or tribal agency.

(1) Approval of an alternative means of emissions imitation 

under §61.12(d) of this chapter.

(2) Approval of a major change to test methods under 

§61.13(h) of this chapter. A “major change to test method” is 

defined in §63.90.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 305 of 511

(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under 

§61.14(g) of this chapter. A “major change to monitoring” is 

defined in §63.90.

(4) Approval of a major change to reporting under §61.10. A 

“major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in §63.90.

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

follows:

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Existing Affected Sources

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet 

this emission 

limit...

PVC-only 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 5.3 parts per 

million by 

volume (ppmv).

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 38 ppmv measured 

as propane.

Total organic HAPb. All resin types. 140 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

All resin types. 0.13 nanograms

per dry standard 

cubic meter

(ng/dscm).

PVCcombined 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 0.56 ppmv.

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 2.3 ppmv 

measured as 

propane.

Total organic HAPb. All resin types. 29 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans (toxic

equivalency basis).

All resin types. 0.076 ng/dscm. 

Stripped 

resin.

Vinyl chloride. Bulk resin. 7.1 parts per 

million by 

weight (ppmw).

Dispersion 

resin.

1,500 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

36 ppmw.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 306 of 511

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet 

this emission 

limit...

Suspension 

blending resin.

140 ppmw.

Copolymer resin. 790 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP.

Bulk resin. 170 ppmw.

Dispersion 

resin.

320 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

36 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

500 ppmw.

Copolymer resin. 1,900 ppmw.

Process 

Wastewate

r.

Vinyl chloride. All resin types. 2.9 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP.

All resin types. 0.018 ppmw.

a Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. b Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon 

limit or the total organic HAP limit.

Table 2 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Affected Sources

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

PVC-only 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 5.3 parts per 

million by volume 

(ppmv).

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 38 ppmv measured as 

propane.

Total organic HAPb. All resin types. 140 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types. 0.13 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter (ng/dscm).

PVCcombined 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 0.56 ppmv. 

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 2.3 ppmv measured as 

propane.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 307 of 511

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

Total organic HAPb. All resin types. 29 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types. 0.076 ng/dscm. 

Stripped 

resin.

Vinyl chloride. Bulk resin. 7.1 parts per 

million by weight 

(ppmw).

Dispersion 

resin.

1,500 ppmw.

Suspension

resin.

36 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

140 ppmw.

Copolymer resin. 790 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

Bulk resin. 170 ppmw.

Dispersion 

resin.

320 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

36 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

500 ppmw.

Copolymer resin. 1,900 ppmw.

Process 

Wastewate

r.

Vinyl chloride. All resin types. 2.9 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

All resin types. 0.018 ppmw.

a Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. b Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon 

limit or the total organic HAP limit.

10. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart HHHHHHH to read as 

follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 308 of 511

Subpart HHHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

Production

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.11860 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart?

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

63.11872 What is the relationship to other 40 CFR part 63 

subparts?

63.11875 When must I comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards

63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards 

must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for 

complying with this subpart?

63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance 

of emission standard during malfunction?

63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at 

my affected source?

Testing and Compliance Requirements

63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance testing 

and monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits and 

demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work 

practice standards?

63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and 

monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance?

63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for storage vessels?

63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment 

leaks?

63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for heat exchange systems?

63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for process vents?

63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 309 of 511

63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to 

demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission 

standards for process vents?

63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet for 

control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission 

limits for process vents?

63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for 

process vents?

63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission 

profile?

63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for other emission sources?

63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient 

monitoring?

63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for stripped resin?

63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for 

wastewater?

63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for process 

wastewater?

63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for 

process wastewater?

63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures 

for process wastewater?

Notifications, Reports and Records

63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when?

63.11990 What records must I keep?

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

63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Definitions

63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and 

Standards for Existing Affected Sources

Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Affected Sources

Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Summary of Control 

Requirements for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources

Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of the 

General Provisions to Part 63

Table 5 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Operating Parameters, 

Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recording and Compliance 

Frequencies for Process Vent Control Devices

Table 6 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 310 of 511

Table 7 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Calibration and Accuracy 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems

Table 8 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Methods and Procedures 

for Conducting Performance Tests for Process Vents

Table 9 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Procedures for Conducting 

Sampling of Stripped Resin and Process Wastewater

Table 10 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--HAP Subject to the 

Stripped Resin and Process Wastewater Provisions at New and 

Existing Sources

Subpart HHHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

Production

What This Subpart Covers

§63.11860 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants emitted from the production of 

polyvinyl chloride and copolymers at major sources. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 

continuous compliance with the emission standards.

§63.11865 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you 

own or operate one or more polyvinyl chloride and copolymers 

production process units (PVCPU) as defined in §63.12005 that 

are located at, or are part of, a major source of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emissions as defined in §63.2. The requirements 

of this subpart do not apply to research and development 

facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 311 of 511

Act, or to chemical manufacturing process units, as defined in 

§63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other raw 

materials used in the production of polyvinyl chloride and 

copolymers.

§63.11870 What is the affected source of this subpart?

(a) This subpart applies to each polyvinyl chloride and

copolymers production affected source.

(b) The polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production 

affected source is the facility wide collection of PVCPUs, 

storage vessels, heat exchange systems, surge control vessels, 

wastewater and process wastewater treatment systems that are 

associated with producing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers.

(c) An existing affected source is one for which 

construction was commenced on or before May 20, 2011, at a major 

source.

(d) A new affected source is one for which construction is 

commenced after May 20, 2011, at a major source.

(e) If components of an existing affected source are 

replaced such that the replacement meets the definition of 

reconstruction in §63.2 and the reconstruction commenced after 

May 20, 2011, then the existing affected source becomes a 

reconstructed source and is subject to the relevant standards 

for a new affected source. The reconstructed source must comply 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 312 of 511

with the requirements for a new affected source upon initial 

startup of the reconstructed source or by [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

whichever is later.

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

After the applicable compliance date specified in 

§63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, is 

required to comply with the provisions of this subpart and no 

longer has to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart F.

§63.11872 What is the relationship to other 40 CFR part 63 

subparts?

After the applicable compliance date specified in 

§63.11875(a), (b) or (c), an affected source that is also 

subject to the provisions of other 40 CFR part 60 or 63, 

subparts is required to comply with this subpart and any other 

applicable 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 subparts.

§63.11875 When must I comply with this subpart?

(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you 

must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this 

subpart no later than [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. On or 

after [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 313 of 511

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], any such existing affected 

source is no longer subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart F.

(b) If you start up a new affected source on or before 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart no later than [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. On or after [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], any 

such new affected source is not subject to the provisions of 40 

CFR part 61, subpart F.

(c) If you start up a new affected source after [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart 

upon startup of your affected source. Upon startup, any such new 

affected source is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 

61, subpart F.

(d) You must meet the notification requirements in §§63.9 

and 63.11985 according to the dates specified in those sections. 

Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission limits and standards in 

this subpart.

Emission Limits, Operating Limits and Work Practice Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 314 of 511

§63.11880 What emission limits, operating limits and standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must comply with each emission limit and standard 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to your 

existing affected source, and you must comply with each emission 

limit and standard specified in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to your new affected source.

(b) You must establish an operating limit for each 

operating parameter required to be monitored in §63.11925, and 

you must establish each operating limit as an operating range, 

minimum operating level, or maximum operating level. You must 

comply with each established operating limit.

(c) You must comply with the emission limits and standards 

specified in §§63.11910 through 63.11980 that apply to your 

affected source.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.11885 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 4 to this subpart specifies which parts of the 

General Provisions in subpart A of this part apply to you.

§63.11890 What are my additional general requirements for 

complying with this subpart?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 315 of 511

(a) The emission limits, operating limits, and work 

practice standards specified in this subpart apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction.

(b) At all times, you must operate and maintain your 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

components and monitoring system components, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable 

operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be 

based on information available to the Administrator, which may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 

operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

(c) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all 

monitoring system components according to §63.8, §63.11935(b) 

and (c), and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 

continuous monitoring system at all times the affected source is 

operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 316 of 511

infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide data. Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 

malfunctions. You are required to complete monitoring system 

repairs in response to monitoring system malfunctions and to 

return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as 

practicable.

(2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all 

other required data collection periods in assessing the 

operation of the control device and associated control system. 

You must report any periods for which the monitoring system 

failed to collect required data.

(d) A deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Any instance in which an affected source subject to 

this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to 

meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, 

including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 

limit, or work practice standard.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 317 of 511

(2) When a performance test indicates that emissions of a 

pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart are exceeding the 

emission standard for the pollutant specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart.

(3) When a 3-hour block average from a continuous emissions 

monitor, as required by §63.11925(c)(1) through (3), exceeds an 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(4) When the average value of a monitored operating 

parameter, based on the data averaging period for compliance 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart, does not meet the 

operating limit established in §63.11880(b).

(5) When an affected source discharges directly to the 

atmosphere from any of the sources specified in paragraphs 

(d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i) A pressure relief device, as defined in §63.12005.

(ii) A bypass, as defined in §63.12005.

(iii) A closed vent system in vacuum service.

(iv) A closure device on a pressure vessel.

(6) Any instance in which the affected source subject to 

this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to 

meet any term or condition specified in paragraph (d)(6)(i) or 

(ii) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 318 of 511

(i) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart.

(ii) Any term or condition relating to compliance with this 

subpart that is included in the operating permit for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.

(7) Any failure to collect required data, except for 

periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments).

§63.11895 How do I assert an affirmative defense for exceedance 

of emission standard during malfunction? 

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in §63.11880, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim 

for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for 

claims for injunctive relief.

(a) Evidence. To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 319 of 511

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and 

must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner.

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices.

 (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for.

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make 

these repairs.

 (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions.

 (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 320 of 511

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage.

 (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and 

human health.

 (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices.

 (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs.

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 

engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected 

source experiencing an exceedance or violation of its emission 

standard(s) during a malfunction may assert an affirmative 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 321 of 511

defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or 

operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense must submit 

with the compliance report required in §63.11985(b) a written 

report to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section.

§63.11896 What am I required to do if I make a process change at 

my affected source?

If you make a process change to an existing affected source 

that does not meet the criteria to become a new affected source 

in §63.11870(d), you must comply with the requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section and the testing and reporting 

requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. If you 

make a process change to a new affected source, you must comply 

with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and the 

testing and reporting requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section. Refer to §63.12005 for the definition of process 

changes.

(a) You must demonstrate that the changed process unit or 

component of the affected facility is in compliance with the 

applicable requirements for an existing affected source. You 

must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and 

establish any applicable operating limits in §63.11880 within 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 322 of 511

180 days of the date of start-up of the changed process unit or 

component of the affected facility. You must demonstrate 

compliance with any applicable work practice standards upon 

startup of the changed process unit or component of the affected 

facility.

(b) You must demonstrate that all changed emission points 

are in compliance with the applicable requirements for a new 

affected source. You must demonstrate initial compliance with 

the emission limits and establish any applicable operating 

limits in §63.11880 within 180 days of the date of startup of 

the changed process unit or component of the affected facility. 

You must demonstrate compliance with any applicable work 

practice standards upon startup of the changed process unit or 

component of the affected facility.

(c) For process changes, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with your emission limits and standards, operating 

limits, and work practice standards according to the procedures 

and frequency in §§63.11910 through 63.11980.

(d) For process changes, you must submit the report 

specified in §63.11985(b)(4)(iii).

Testing and Compliance Requirements

§63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance 

testing and monitoring, establish any applicable operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 323 of 511

limits and demonstrate initial compliance with my emission 

limits and work practice standards?

(a) For existing affected sources, you must establish any 

applicable operating limits required in §63.11880 and 

demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and 

standards specified in Tables 1 and 3 to this subpart, as 

applicable, no later than 180 days after the compliance date 

specified in §63.11875 and according to the applicable 

provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

(b) For existing affected sources, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with any applicable work practice standards 

required in §63.11880 no later than the compliance date 

specified in §63.11875 and according to the applicable 

provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

(c) For new or reconstructed affected sources, you must 

establish any applicable operating limits required in §63.11880, 

and demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and 

standards specified in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart, as 

applicable, no later than 180 days after the effective date of 

publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or within 

180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later, 

according to §63.7(a)(2)(ix).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 324 of 511

(d) For new and reconstructed affected sources, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with any applicable work practice 

standards required in §63.11880 no later than the startup date 

of the affected source or the effective date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a 

performance test and a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, 

or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, then you must follow the procedures in §63.7(a)(4).

, whichever is later, and 

according to the applicable provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing and 

monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance?

Following the date of your initial demonstration of 

compliance in §63.11900, you must conduct subsequent performance 

testing and monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

your emission limits, operating limits, and work practice 

standards according to the procedures and frequency in 

§§63.11910 through 63.11980. If you make a process change as 

specified in §63.11896, such that a different emission limit or 

operating parameter limit applies, you must conduct a 

performance test according to §63.11896.

§63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for storage vessels?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 325 of 511

You must comply with the requirements specified in Table 3 

to this subpart for each storage vessel in HAP service.

(a) For each fixed roof storage vessel used to comply with 

the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section. If you elect to use a fixed roof storage vessel vented 

to a closed vent system and control device, the closed vent 

system and control device must meet the requirements in 

§§63.11925 through 63.11950.

(1) Design requirements

(ii) Each opening in the fixed roof must be equipped with a 

closure device designed to operate such that when the closure 

device is secured in the closed position there are no visible 

cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces in the closure device 

or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure device.

. (i) The fixed roof must be 

installed in a manner such that there are no visible cracks, 

holes, gaps, or other open spaces between roof section joints or 

between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall.

(2) Operating requirements. (i) Except as specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the fixed roof must be 

installed with each closure device secured in the closed 

position.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 326 of 511

(ii) Opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed 

roof is allowed under conditions specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.

(A) A closure device may be opened or the roof may be 

removed when needed to provide access.

(B) A conservation vent that vents to the atmosphere is 

allowed during normal operations to maintain the tank internal 

operating pressure within tank design specifications. Normal 

operating conditions that may require these devices to open are 

during those times when the internal pressure of the storage 

vessel is outside the internal pressure operating range for the 

storage vessel as a result of loading or unloading operations or 

diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.

(3) Inspection and monitoring requirements

(i) Visually inspect the fixed roof and its closure devices 

for defects initially and at least once per calendar year except 

as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Defects 

include, but are not limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps 

in the roof sections or between the roof and the wall of the 

storage vessel; broken, cracked or otherwise damaged seals, or 

gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing hatches, 

access covers, caps or other closure devices.

. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 327 of 511

(ii) The inspection requirement specified in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) of this section does not apply to parts of the fixed 

roof that you determine are unsafe to inspect because operating 

personnel would be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as 

a consequence of complying with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section, provided you comply with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.

(A) You prepare and maintain at the plant site written 

documentation that identifies all parts of the fixed roof that 

are unsafe to inspect and explains why such parts are unsafe to 

inspect.

(B) You develop and implement a written plan and schedule 

to conduct inspections the next time alternative storage 

capacity becomes available and the storage vessel can be emptied 

or temporarily removed from service, as necessary, to complete 

the inspection. The required inspections must be performed as 

frequently as practicable but do not need to be performed more 

than once per calendar year. You must maintain a copy of the 

written plan and schedule at the plant site.

(4) Repair requirements. (i) Complete repair of a defect as 

soon as possible, but no later than 45 days after detection. You 

must comply with the requirements in this paragraph (a)(4)(i) 

except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 328 of 511

(ii) Repair of a defect may be delayed beyond 45 days if 

you determine that repair of the defect requires emptying or 

temporary removal from service of the storage vessel and no 

alternative storage capacity is available at the site to accept 

the removed material. In this case, repair the defect the next 

time alternative storage capacity becomes available and the 

storage vessel can be emptied or temporarily removed from 

service.

(b) If you elect to use an internal floating roof storage 

vessel or external floating roof storage vessel to comply with 

the requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must 

meet all requirements of §§63.1060 through 63.1067 of subpart WW 

of this part for internal floating roof storage vessels or 

external floating roof storage vessels, as applicable.

(c) For each pressure vessel used to comply with the 

requirements specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section.

(1) Whenever the pressure vessel is in hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) service, you must operate the pressure vessel 

as a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere, e.g., 

during filling, emptying and purging. The vent stream during 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 329 of 511

filling, emptying and purging must meet the requirements of 

§63.11925(a) and (b).

(2) Each opening in the pressure vessel must be equipped 

with a closure device designed to operate such that when the 

closure device is secured in the closed position there are no 

visible cracks, holes, gaps or other open spaces in the closure 

device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure 

device.

(3) All potential leak interfaces must be monitored 

annually for leaks using the procedures specified in §63.11915

and you may adjust for background concentration. You must comply 

with the recordkeeping provisions specified in §63.11990(b)(4)

and the reporting provisions specified in §63.11985(a)(1), 

(b)(1), and (b)(10). 

(4) Pressure vessel closure devices must not discharge to

the atmosphere. Any such release (e.g.

§63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment 

leaks?

, leak) constitutes a 

violation of this rule. You must submit to the Administrator as 

part of your compliance report the information specified in 

§63.11985(b)(10). This report is required even if you elect to 

follow the procedures specified in §63.11895 to establish an 

affirmative defense.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 330 of 511

For equipment in HAP service (as defined in §63.12005), you 

must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section.

(a) Requirement for certain equipment in subpart UU of this 

part. You must comply with §§63.1020 through 63.1025, 63.1027, 

63.1029 through 63.1032, and 63.1034 through 63.1039 of subpart 

UU of this part.

(b) Requirements for pumps, compressors, and agitators. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 

section. For each type of equipment specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) of this section, you must also meet the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.

(1) Rotating pumps. HAP emissions from seals on all 

rotating pumps in HAP service are to be minimized by either 

installing sealless pumps, pumps with double mechanical seals or 

equivalent equipment, or by complying with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for rotating pumps. If double 

mechanical seals are used, emissions from the seals are to be 

minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two seals so 

that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by complying with 

§63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or procedures 

approved by the Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 331 of 511

(2) Reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, 

reciprocating compressors and agitators. HAP emissions from 

seals on all reciprocating pumps, rotating compressors, 

reciprocating compressors and agitators in HAP service are to be 

minimized by either installing double mechanical seals or 

equivalent equipment, or by complying with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for reciprocating pumps, rotating 

compressors, reciprocating compressors and/or agitators. If 

double mechanical seals are used, HAP emissions from the seals 

are to be minimized by maintaining the pressure between the two 

seals so that any leak that occurs is into the pump; by 

complying with §63.11925(a) and (b); or equivalent equipment or 

procedures approved by the Administrator.

(c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. For pressure 

relief devices in HAP service, as defined in §63.12005, you must 

meet the requirements of this paragraph (c) and paragraph (a) of 

this section, you must comply with the recordkeeping provisions 

in §63.11990(c), and you must comply with the reporting 

provisions in §§63.11985(a)(2), (b)(2) and (c)(7). 

(1) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that 

discharge directly to the atmosphere without first meeting the 

process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart by 

routing the discharge to a closed vent system and control device 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 332 of 511

designed and operated in accordance with the requirements in 

§§63.11925 through 63.11950,, you must install, maintain, and 

operate release indicators as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. Any release to the atmosphere without 

meeting the process vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, constitutes a violation of this rule. You must submit 

the report specified in §63.11985(c)(7), as described in 

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(i) A release indicator must be properly installed on each 

pressure relief device in such a way that it will indicate when 

an emission release has occurred.

(ii) Each indicator must be equipped with an alert system 

that will notify an operator immediately and automatically when 

the pressure relief device is open. The alert must be located 

such that the signal is detected and recognized easily by an 

operator.

(iii) For any instance that the release indicator indicates 

that a pressure relief device is open, you must notify operators 

that a pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of the 

release, you must submit to the Administrator the report 

specified in §63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if 

you elect to follow the procedures specified in §63.11895(b) to 

establish an affirmative defense.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 333 of 511

(2) For pressure relief devices in HAP service that 

discharge directly to a closed vent system and control device 

designed and operated in accordance with the requirements in 

§§63.11925 through 63.11950, and are required to meet process 

vent emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. Any 

release to the atmosphere without meeting the process vent 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, constitutes a 

violation of this rule. You must notify operators that a 

pressure release has occurred, and, within 10 days of the 

release, you must submit to the Administrator the report 

specified in §63.11985(c)(7). This report is required even if 

you elect to follow the procedures specified in §63.11895(b) to 

establish an affirmative defense.

§63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for heat exchange systems?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 

you must perform monitoring to identify leaks of volatile 

organic compounds from each heat exchange system in HAP service 

subject to the requirements of this subpart according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Monitoring locations for closed-loop recirculation heat 

exchange systems. For each closed loop recirculating heat 

exchange system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 334 of 511

location(s) described in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of 

this section.

(i) Each cooling tower return line prior to exposure to air 

for each heat exchange system in HAP service.

(ii) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat 

exchanger or group of heat exchangers within a heat exchange 

system is covered by the selected monitoring location(s).

(2) Monitoring locations for once-through heat exchange 

systems

(i) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat 

exchanger or group of heat exchangers in HAP service within a 

heat exchange system is covered by the selected monitoring 

location(s).

. For each once-through heat exchange system, you must 

collect and analyze a sample from the location(s) described in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. You may also elect to 

collect and analyze an additional sample from the location(s) 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

(ii) The inlet water feed line for a once-through heat 

exchange system prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple heat 

exchange systems use the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from 

the same primary water source), you may monitor at one 

representative location and use the monitoring results for that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 335 of 511

sampling location for all heat exchange systems that use that 

same water feed.

(3) Monitoring method

(i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic 

compounds concentration (in parts per million by volume) as 

methane from the air stripping testing system using "Air 

Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources," 

Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 

Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14) using a flame ionization 

detector analyzer.

. You must determine the total 

strippable volatile organic compounds concentration or vinyl 

chloride concentration at each monitoring location using one of 

the analytical methods specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through 

(iii) of this section.

(ii) Determine the total strippable volatile organic 

compounds concentration (in parts per billion by weight) in the 

cooling water using Method 624 at 40 CFR part 136, appendix A. 

The target list of compounds shall be generated based on a presurvey sample and analysis by gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry and process knowledge to include all compounds that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 336 of 511

can potentially leak into the cooling water. If Method 624 of 

part 136, appendix A is not applicable for all compounds that 

can potentially leak into the cooling water for a given heat 

exchange system, you cannot use this monitoring method for that 

heat exchange system.

(iii) Determine the vinyl chloride concentration (in parts 

per billion by weight) in the cooling water using Method 107 at 

40 CFR part 61, appendix A.

(4) Monitoring frequency

(i) For heat exchange systems for which you have not 

delayed repair of any leaks, monitor at least monthly. You may 

elect to monitor more frequently than the minimum frequency 

specified in this paragraph.

. You must determine the total 

strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride 

concentration at each monitoring location at the frequencies 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(ii) If you elect to monitor the inlet water feed line for 

a once-through heat exchange system as provided in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii) of this section, you must monitor the inlet water 

feed line at the same frequency used to monitor the heat 

exchange exit line(s), as required in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 337 of 511

(b) A heat exchange system is not subject to the monitoring 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if it meets any 

one of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

(1) All heat exchangers that are in HAP service within the 

heat exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on the 

cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the 

maximum pressure on the process side.

(2) The heat exchange system does not contain any heat 

exchangers that are in HAP service.

(3) The heat exchange system has a maximum cooling water 

flow rate of 10 gallons per minute or less.

(c) The leak action levels for both existing and new 

sources are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

(1) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by 

using the monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section, then the leak action level is a total strippable 

volatile organic compounds concentration (as methane) in the 

stripping gas of 3.9 parts per million by volume.

(2) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by 

using the monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, then the leak action level is a total strippable 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 338 of 511

volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water of 

50 parts per billion by weight.

(3) If you elect to monitor your heat exchange system by 

using the monitoring method specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 

of this section, then the leak action level is a vinyl chloride 

concentration in the cooling water of 50 parts per billion by 

weight.

(d) A leak is defined as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or 

(2) of this section, as applicable.

(1) For once-through heat exchange systems for which you 

monitor the inlet water feed, as described in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii) of this section, a leak is detected if the difference 

in the measurement value of the sample taken from a location 

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the 

measurement value of the corresponding sample taken from the 

location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section 

equals or exceeds the leak action level.

(2) For all other heat exchange systems, a leak is detected 

if a measurement value taken according to the requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section equals or exceeds the leak action 

level.

(e) If a leak is detected, you must repair the leak to 

reduce the measured concentration to below the applicable action 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 339 of 511

level as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after 

identifying the leak, except as specified in paragraphs (f) and 

(g) of this section. Repair includes re-monitoring as specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section to verify that the measured 

concentration is below the applicable action level. Actions that 

you can take to achieve repair include but are not limited to:

(1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, 

such as welding the leak or replacing a tube;

(2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;

(3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the 

process fluid;

(4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; 

or

(5) Isolating, bypassing or otherwise removing the leaking 

heat exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.

(f) If you detect a leak when monitoring a cooling tower 

return line or heat exchanger exit line under paragraph (a) of 

this section, you may conduct additional monitoring following 

the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section to further 

isolate each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in HAP 

service within the heat exchange system for which the leak was 

detected. If you do not detect any leaks when conducting 

additional monitoring for each heat exchanger or group of heat 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 340 of 511

exchangers, the heat exchange system is excluded from repair 

requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.

(g) The delay of repair action level is defined as either a 

total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration (as 

methane) in the stripping gas of 39 parts per million by volume 

or a total strippable volatile organic compounds concentration 

in the cooling water of 500 parts per billion by weight or a 

vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water of 500 parts 

per billion by weight. While you remain below the repair action 

level, you may delay the repair of a leaking heat exchanger only 

if one of the conditions in paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this 

section is met. If you exceed the repair action level you must 

repair according to paragraph (e) of this section. You must 

determine if a delay of repair is necessary as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 45 days after first identifying 

the leak.

(1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a 

shutdown and the total strippable volatile organic compounds or 

vinyl chloride concentration is initially and remains less than 

the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods 

during the delay of repair, you may delay repair until the next 

scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange system. If, during 

subsequent monitoring, the total strippable volatile organic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 341 of 511

compounds or vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or greater 

than the delay of repair action level, you must repair the leak 

within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the total 

strippable volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride 

concentration was equal to or exceeded the delay of repair 

action level.

(2) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not 

available and the total strippable volatile organic compounds or 

vinyl chloride concentration is initially and remains less than 

the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods 

during the delay of repair, you may delay the repair for a 

maximum of 120 days from the day the leak was first identified. 

You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts or 

personnel were not available. If, during subsequent monthly 

monitoring, the total strippable volatile organic compounds or 

vinyl chloride concentration is equal to or greater than the 

delay of repair action level, you must repair the leak within 30 

days of the monitoring event in which the leak was equal to or 

exceeded the total strippable volatile organic compounds or 

vinyl chloride delay of repair action level.

(h) To delay the repair under paragraph (g) of this 

section, you must record the information in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (4) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 342 of 511

(1) The reason(s) for delaying repair.

(2) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as 

practical.

(3) The date and concentration of the leak as first 

identified and the results of all subsequent monitoring events 

during the delay of repair.

(4) An estimate of the potential emissions from the leaking 

heat exchange system following the procedures in paragraphs 

(h)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Determine the total strippable volatile organic 

compounds or vinyl chloride concentration in the cooling water, 

in parts per billion by weight. If the Modified El Paso Method 

is used, calculate the total strippable volatile organic 

compounds concentration in the cooling water using equation 7-1 

from "Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 

Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 

Sources," Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, 

prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 

31, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) and the total 

strippable volatile organic compounds concentration measured in 

the stripped air.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 343 of 511

(ii) Calculate the emissions for the leaking heat exchange 

system by multiplying the volatile organic compounds or vinyl 

chloride concentration in the cooling water, ppbw, by the flow 

rate of the cooling water at the selected monitoring location 

and by the expected duration of the delay according to Equation 

1 of this section. The flow rate may be based on direct 

measurement, pump curves, heat balance calculations or other 

engineering methods.

 (Eq. 1)

Where:

EL

C

= Emissions from leaking heat exchange system, pounds 

of volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride.

VC

V

= Actual measured concentration of total strippable 

volatile organic compounds or vinyl chloride 

measured in the cooling water, parts per billion 

by weight (ppbw).

CW

ρ

= Total volumetric flow rate of cooling water, 

gallons per minute (gpm).

CW

D

= Density of cooling water, pounds per gallon 

(lb/gal).

delay

§63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for process vents?

= Expected duration of the repair delay, days.

Each process vent must meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(a) through (h) of this section.

(a) Emission limits. Each process vent must meet the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart prior to the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 344 of 511

vent stream being exposed to the atmosphere. The emission limits 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart apply at all times. The emission 

limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart must not be met through 

dilution.

(b) Closed vent systems and control devices

(c) 

. Each batch 

process vent, continuous process vent and miscellaneous vent

must be routed through a closed vent system to a control device. 

All gas streams routed to the closed vent system and control 

device must be for a process purpose and not for the purpose of 

diluting the process vent to meet the emission limits in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart. Each control device used to comply with 

paragraph (a) of this section must meet the requirements of 

§§63.11925 and 63.11940, and all closed vent systems must meet 

the requirements in §63.11930. You must not use a flare to 

comply with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

General monitoring requirements. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, for each control 

device used to comply with the process vent emission limit 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must install and 

operate a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to 

monitor each operating parameter specified in §63.11940(a) 

through (h) to comply with your operating limit(s) required in 

§63.11880(b).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 345 of 511

(1) Hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS). In lieu of establishing operating limits in §63.11880(b) 

and using CPMS to comply with the operating limits, as specified 

in §63.11940(a) through (h), upon promulgation of a performance 

specification for hydrogen chloride CEMS, new and existing 

sources have the option to install a hydrogen chloride CEMS to 

demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the hydrogen 

chloride emission limit for process vents, as specified in 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

(2) Dioxin/furan CEMS. In lieu of establishing operating 

limits in §63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with the 

operating limits as specified in §63.11940(a) through (h), upon 

promulgation of a performance specification for dioxin/furan 

CEMS, new and existing sources have the option to install a 

dioxin/furan CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the dioxins/furan emission limit for process 

vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

(3) Total hydrocarbon CEMS. In lieu of establishing 

operating limits in §63.11880(b) and using CPMS to comply with 

the operating limits as specified in §63.11940(a) through (h), 

new and existing affected sources have the option to install a 

total hydrocarbon CEMS to demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the total hydrocarbons or total organic HAP 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 346 of 511

emission limit for process vents, as specified in paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section.

(d) Initial compliance

(1) You must conduct an initial inspection as specified in 

§63.11930(d) for each closed vent system.

. To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must comply with paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.

(2) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to 

use as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

prepare the quality control program and site-specific 

performance evaluation test plan as specified in §63.11935(b) 

and site-specific monitoring plan specified in §63.11935(c), 

respectively.

(3) For each CEMS and CPMS required or that you elect to 

use as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

install, operate, and maintain the CEMS and CPMS as specified in 

§§63.11935(b) and (c), respectively, and you must conduct an 

initial site-specific performance evaluation test according to 

your site-specific monitoring plan and §§63.11935(b)(3) and 

(c)(4), respectively.

(4) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements specified 

in §63.11890(c), and you must demonstrate initial compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 347 of 511

with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based 

on 3-hour block averages of CEMS data collected at the minimum 

frequency specified in §63.11935(b)(2) and calculated using the 

data reduction method specified in §63.11935(e). For a CEMS used 

on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based 

on an operating block in lieu of the 3-hour averaging period.

(5) For each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 for which you 

do not use a CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must conduct an initial performance test according 

to the requirements in §63.11945 to demonstrate compliance with 

the total hydrocarbons or total organic HAP emission limit, 

vinyl chloride emission limit, hydrogen chloride emission limit, 

and dioxin/furan emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(ii) During the performance test specified in paragraph 

(d)(5)(i) of this section, for each CPMS installed and operated 

as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, you must 

establish an operating limit as the operating parameter range, 

minimum operating parameter level, or maximum operating 

parameter level specified in §63.11935(d). You must meet the 

requirements specified in §63.11890(c). Each operating limit 

must be based on the data averaging period for compliance 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart using data collected at the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 348 of 511

minimum frequency specified in §63.11935(c)(2) and calculated 

using the data reduction method specified in §63.11935(e). For a 

CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use a data averaging 

period based on an operating block in lieu of the averaging 

period specified in Table 5 to this subpart.

(e) Continuous compliance

(1) You must meet the requirements in §63.11930 for each 

closed vent system.

. To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for each process vent, you must comply with paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (5) of this section.

(2) You must operate and maintain each CEMS and CPMS 

required in paragraph (c) of this section as specified in 

§63.11935(b) and (c), respectively.

(3) For each emission limit for which you use a CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must conduct a periodic site-specific CEMS 

performance evaluation test according to your quality control 

program and site-specific performance evaluation test plan 

specified in §63.11935(b)(1).

(ii) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart based on 3-hour 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 349 of 511

block averages of CEMS data collected at the minimum frequency 

specified in §63.11935(b)(2), and calculated using the data 

reduction method specified in §63.11935(e). You must meet the 

requirements specified in §63.11890(c). For a CEMS used on a 

batch operation, you may use a data averaging period based on an 

operating block in lieu of the 3-hour averaging period.

(4) For each emission limit for which you do not use a CEMS 

to demonstrate compliance, you must meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must conduct a performance test once every 5 years 

according to the requirements in §63.11945 for each pollutant in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(ii) For each CPMS operated and maintained as specified in 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section, you must meet the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 

section.

(A) You must conduct periodic site-specific CPMS 

performance evaluation tests according to your site-specific 

monitoring plan and §63.11935(c).

(B) For each control device being monitored, you must 

continuously collect CPMS data consistent with §63.11890(c) and 

your site-specific monitoring plan. You must continuously 

determine the average value of each monitored operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 350 of 511

parameter based on the data collection and reduction methods

specified in §§63.11935(c)(2) and 63.11935(e), and the 

applicable data averaging period for compliance specified in 

Table 5 to this subpart for all periods the process is 

operating. For a CPMS used on a batch operation, you may use a 

data averaging period based on an operating block in lieu of the 

averaging periods specified in Table 5 to this subpart.

(C) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

operating limit established in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this 

section using these average values calculated in paragraph 

(e)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

(5) Each closed vent system and control device used to 

comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

must be operated at all times when emissions are vented to, or 

collected by, these systems or devices.

(f) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan toxic 

equivalency emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must determine dioxin/furan toxic equivalency as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 351 of 511

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) 

congener measured in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section, multiply the congener concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 6 to 

this subpart.

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section to obtain the total 

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency.

(g) Emission profile

(1) For batch process vents, the emissions profile must:

. You must characterize each process 

vent by developing an emissions profile for each contributing 

continuous process vent, miscellaneous vent and batch process 

vent according to paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.

(i) Describe the characteristics of the batch process vent 

under worst-case conditions.

(ii) Determine emissions per episode and batch process vent 

emissions according to the procedures specified in §63.11950.

(2) For continuous process vents, the flow rate and 

concentration must be determined according to paragraphs 

(g)(2)(i) through (iii) or according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv):

(i)(A) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as 

appropriate, shall be used for selection of the sampling site. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 352 of 511

The sampling site shall be after the last recovery device (if 

any recovery devices are present) but prior to being combined 

with any other continuous process vent, batch process vent, or 

miscellaneous vent, prior to the inlet of any control device 

that is present and prior to release to the atmosphere.

(B) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents 

smaller than 0.10 meter in diameter.

(ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using 

Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, as 

appropriate.

(iii) (A) Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or 

Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 shall be used to 

measure concentration; alternatively, any other method or data 

that has been validated according to the protocol in Method 301 

of appendix A of this part may be used.

(B) Where Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 is 

used, the following procedures shall be used to calculate parts 

per million by volume concentration:

(1) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour 

in which either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall 

be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be 

taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15-

minute intervals during the run.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 353 of 511

(2) The concentration of either total organic compounds 

(TOC) (minus methane and ethane) or organic HAP shall be 

calculated according to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(i) or 

(g)(2)(iii)(B)(2)(ii

(i) The TOC concentration (C

) of this section as applicable.

TOC

(Eq. 1)

) is the sum of the 

concentrations of the individual components and shall be 

computed for each run using Equation 1 of this section:

where:

CTOC

C

=Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry 

basis, parts per million by volume.

ji

n=Number of components in the sample.

=Concentration of sample component j of the sample i, dry 

basis, parts per million by volume.

x=Number of samples in the sample run.

(ii) The total organic HAP concentration (CHAP) shall be 

computed according to Equation 1 of this section except that 

only the organic HAP species shall be summed. The list of 

organic HAP is provided in Table 2 to subpart F of this part.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 354 of 511

(C) Where Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is 

used, the following procedures shall be used to calculate parts 

per million by volume TOC concentration:

(1) Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, shall be 

used only if a single organic HAP compound is greater than 50 

percent of total organic HAP, by volume, in the vent stream.

(2) The vent stream composition may be determined by either 

process knowledge, test data collected using an appropriate EPA 

method, or a method or data validated according to the protocol 

in Method 301 of appendix A of this part. Examples of 

information that could constitute process knowledge include 

calculations based on material balances, process stoichiometry, 

or previous test results provided the results are still relevant 

to the current vent stream conditions.

(3) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 shall be the single organic 

HAP compound present at greater than 50 percent of the total 

organic HAP by volume.

(4) The span value for Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7 shall be 50 parts per million by volume.

(5) Use of Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is 

acceptable if the response from the high-level calibration gas 

is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 355 of 511

the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the 

most sensitive scale.

(iv) Engineering assessment including, but not limited to, 

the following:

(A) Previous test results provided the tests are 

representative of current operating practices at the process 

unit.

(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of 

the process under representative operating conditions.

(C) Maximum flow rate, TOC emission rate, organic HAP 

emission rate, or net heating value limit specified or implied 

within a permit limit applicable to the process vent.

(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering 

principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods 

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry 

to estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations,

(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical 

equipment design such as pump or blower capacities,

(3) Estimation of TOC or organic HAP concentrations based 

on saturation conditions,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 356 of 511

(4) Estimation of maximum expected net heating value based 

on the vent stream concentration of each organic compound or, 

alternatively, as if all TOC in the vent stream were the 

compound with the highest heating value.

(E) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the 

engineering assessment shall be documented.

(3) For miscellaneous process vents the emissions profile 

must be determined according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this 

section. 

(h) Process changes

§63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?

. Except for temporary shutdowns for 

maintenance activities, if you make a process change such that, 

as a result of that change, you are subject to a different 

process vent limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, then you 

must meet the requirements of §63.11896.

(a) General. To route emissions from process vents subject 

to the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart to a 

control device, you must use a closed vent system and meet the 

requirements of this section and all provisions referenced in 

this section. However, if you operate and maintain your closed 

vent system in vacuum service as defined in §63.12005, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section and are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 357 of 511

not required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(g) of this section.

(b) Collection of emissions

(c) Bypass. For each closed vent system that contains a 

bypass as defined in §63.12005 (e.g., diverting a vent stream 

away from the control device), you must not discharge to the 

atmosphere through the bypass. Any such release constitutes a 

violation of this rule. The use of any bypass diverted to the 

atmosphere during a performance test invalidates the performance 

test. You must comply with the provisions of either paragraph 

(c)(1) or (2) of this section for each closed vent system that 

contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream to the 

atmosphere.

. Each closed vent system must 

be designed and operated to collect the HAP vapors from each 

continuous process vent, miscellaneous process vent and batch 

process vent, and to route the collected vapors to a control 

device.

(1) Bypass flow indicator. Install, maintain, and operate a 

flow indicator as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) 

of this section.

(i) The flow indicator must be properly installed at the 

entrance to any bypass.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 358 of 511

(ii) The flow indicator must be equipped with an alarm 

system that will alert an operator immediately, and 

automatically when flow is detected in the bypass. The alarm 

must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized 

easily by an operator.

(iii) If the alarm is triggered, you must immediately 

initiate procedures to identify the cause of the alarm. If any 

closed vent system has discharged to the atmosphere through a 

vent or bypass, you must initiate procedures to stop the bypass 

discharge.

(iv) For any instances where the flow indicator alarm is 

triggered, you must submit to the Administrator as part of your 

compliance report, the information specified in §63.11985(b)(9)

and (10). This report is required even if you elect to follow 

the procedures specified in §63.11895 to establish an 

affirmative defense and submit the reports specified in 

§63.11985(c)(4).

(2) Bypass valve configuration. Secure the bypass valve in 

the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key 

type configuration.

(i) You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism 

at least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained 

in the non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 359 of 511

diverted through the bypass. A broken seal or closure mechanism 

or a diverted valve constitutes a violation from the emission 

limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You must maintain the 

records specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) For each seal or closure mechanism, you must comply 

with either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.

(A) For each instance that you change the bypass valve to 

the diverting position, you must submit to the Administrator as 

part of your compliance report, the information specified in 

§63.11985(b)(9) and (10). This report is required even if you 

elect to follow the procedures specified in §63.11895 to 

establish an affirmative defense and submit the reports 

specified in §63.11985(c)(4).

(B) You must install, maintain, and operate a bypass flow 

indicator as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section and you must meet the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section for each instance that the 

flow indicator alarm is triggered.

(d) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring 

requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section, you must inspect each closed vent system as specified 

in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 360 of 511

(1) Hard-piping inspection. If the closed vent system is 

constructed of hard-piping, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section.

(i) Conduct an initial inspection according to the 

procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.

(ii) Conduct annual inspections for visible, audible, or 

olfactory indications of leaks.

(2) Ductwork inspection. If the closed vent system is 

constructed of ductwork, you must conduct initial and annual 

inspections according to the procedures in paragraph (e) of this 

section.

(3) Equipment that is unsafe to inspect. You may designate 

any parts of the closed vent system as unsafe to inspect if you 

determine that personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger 

as a consequence of complying with the initial and annual closed 

vent system inspection requirements of this subpart.

(e) Closed vent system inspection procedures

(1) General. Inspections must be performed during periods 

when HAP is being collected by or vented through the closed vent 

. Except as 

provided in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, you must comply 

with all provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 361 of 511

system. A leak is indicated by an instrument reading greater 

than 500 parts per million by volume above background or by 

visual inspection.

(2) Inspection procedures. Each closed vent system subject 

to this paragraph (e)(2) must be inspected according to the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vii) of 

this section.

(i) Inspections must be conducted in accordance with Method 

21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except as otherwise 

specified in this section.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this 

section, the detection instrument must meet the performance 

criteria of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except 

the instrument response factor criteria in section 8.1.1.2 of 

Method 21 must be for the representative composition of the 

process fluid and not of each individual volatile organic 

compound in the stream. For process streams that contain 

nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that are not organic HAP or 

volatile organic compound, the representative stream response 

factor must be determined on an inert-free basis. You may 

determine the response factor at any concentration for which you 

will monitor for leaks.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 362 of 511

(iii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that 

will meet the performance criteria of Method 21 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-7 specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying 

by the representative response factor of the process fluid, 

calculated on an inert-free basis as described in paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) of this section.

(iv) The detection instrument must be calibrated before use 

on each day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.

(v) Calibration gases must be as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(v)(A) through (D) of this section.

(A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume 

hydrocarbon in air).

(B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 

10,000 parts per million by volume. A calibration gas other than 

methane in air may be used if the instrument does not respond to 

methane or if the instrument does not meet the performance 

criteria specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. In 

such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of one or more 

of the compounds to be measured in air.

(C) If the detection instrument's design allows for 

multiple calibration scales, then the lower scale must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 363 of 511

calibrated with a calibration gas that is no higher than 2,500 

parts per million by volume.

(D) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, 

at the end of each monitoring day. Check the instrument using 

the same calibration gas(es) that were used to calibrate the 

instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in Method 

21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, Section 10.1, except do not 

adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas 

value. Record the instrument reading for each scale used as 

specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Divide these 

readings by the initial calibration values for each scale and 

multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a 

percentage. If any calibration drift assessment shows a negative 

drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration 

value, then all equipment monitored since the last calibration 

with instrument readings below the appropriate leak definition 

and above the leak definition multiplied by the value specified 

in paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D)(1) of this section must be remonitored. If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive 

drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration 

value, then, at your discretion, all equipment since the last 

calibration with instrument readings above the appropriate leak 

definition and below the leak definition multiplied by the value 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 364 of 511

specified in paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D)(2) of this section may be 

re-monitored.

(1) 100 minus the percent of negative drift, divided by 

100.

(2) 100 plus the percent of positive drift, divided by 100.

(vi) You may elect to adjust or not adjust instrument 

readings for background. If you elect not to adjust readings for 

background, all such instrument readings must be compared 

directly to 500 parts per million by volume to determine whether 

there is a leak. If you elect to adjust instrument readings for 

background, you must measure background concentration using the 

procedures in this section. You must subtract the background 

reading from the maximum concentration indicated by the 

instrument.

(vii) If you elect to adjust for background, the arithmetic 

difference between the maximum concentration indicated by the 

instrument and the background level must be compared with 500 

parts per million by volume for determining whether there is a 

leak.

(3) Instrument probe. The instrument probe must be 

traversed around all potential leak interfaces as described in 

Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 365 of 511

(4) Unsafe-to-inspect written plan requirements. For 

equipment designated as unsafe to inspect according to the 

provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must 

maintain and follow a written plan that requires inspecting the 

equipment as frequently as practical during safe-to-inspect 

times, but not more frequently than the annual inspection 

schedule otherwise applicable. You must still repair unsafe-toinspect equipment according to the procedures in paragraph (f) 

of this section if a leak is detected.

(f) Closed vent system leak repair provisions

(1) Leak repair general for hard-piping. If there are 

visible, audible, or olfactory indications of leaks at the time 

of the annual visual inspections required by paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section, you must follow the procedure 

specified in either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.

. The 

provisions of this paragraph (f) apply to closed vent systems 

collecting HAP from an affected source.

(i) You must eliminate the leak.

(ii) You must monitor the equipment according to the 

procedures in paragraph (e) of this section and comply with the 

leak repair provisions in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 366 of 511

(2) Leak repair schedule. Leaks must be repaired as soon as 

practical, except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section.

(i) A first attempt at repair must be made no later than 5 

days after the leak is detected.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section, repairs must be completed no later than 15 days after 

the leak is detected or at the beginning of the next 

introduction of vapors to the system, whichever is later.

(3) Delay of repair. Delay of repair of a closed vent 

system for which leaks have been detected is allowed if repair 

within 15 days after a leak is detected is technically 

infeasible or unsafe without a closed vent system shutdown, as 

defined in §63.12005, or if you determine that emissions 

resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the 

emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of such 

equipment must be completed as soon as practical, but not later 

than the end of the next closed vent system shutdown.

(g) Closed vent system records

(1) Bypass records. For each closed vent system that 

contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream away from the 

. For closed vent systems, 

you must record the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (5) of this section, as applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 367 of 511

control device and to the atmosphere, or cause air intrusion 

into the control device, you must keep a record of the 

information specified in either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of 

this section, as applicable.

(i) You must maintain records of any alarms triggered 

because flow was detected in the bypass, including the date and 

time the alarm was triggered, the duration of the flow in the 

bypass, as well as records of the times of all periods when the 

vent stream is diverted from the control device or the flow 

indicator is not operating.

(ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, hourly records of flow are not 

required. In such cases, you must record that the monthly visual 

inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms has been done, and 

must record the occurrence of all periods when the seal 

mechanism is broken, the bypass valve position has changed, or 

the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out, and 

records of any car-seal that has been broken.

(2) Inspection records. For each instrumental or visual 

inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section for closed vent systems collecting HAP from an 

affected source during which no leaks are detected, you must 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 368 of 511

record that the inspection was performed, the date of the 

inspection, and a statement that no leaks were detected.

(3) Leak records. When a leak is detected from a closed 

vent system collecting HAP from an affected source, the 

information specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (vi) of 

this section must be recorded and kept for 5 years.

(i) The instrument and the equipment identification number 

and the operator name, initials, or identification number.

(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the 

first attempt to repair the leak.

(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.

(iv) The maximum instrument reading measured by the 

procedures in paragraph (e) of this section after the leak is 

successfully repaired.

(v) Repair delayed and the reason for the delay if a leak 

is not repaired within 15 days after discovery of the leak. You 

may develop a written procedure that identifies the conditions 

that justify a delay of repair. In such cases, reasons for delay 

of repair may be documented by citing the relevant sections of 

the written procedure.

(vi) Copies of the compliance reports as specified in 

§63.11985(b)(9), if records are not maintained on a computerized 

database capable of generating summary reports from the records.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 369 of 511

(4) Instrument calibration records. You must maintain 

records of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) 

through (vi) of this section for monitoring instrument 

calibrations conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of 

Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and paragraph (e) of 

this section.

(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing 

the calibration.

(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification 

date, and certified concentration.

(iii) Instrument scale(s) used.

(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the 

meter readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the 

calibration gas value in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 

21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.

(v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required 

by paragraph (e)(2)(v)(D) of this section (i.e.

(vi) If you make your own calibration gas, a description of 

the procedure used.

, instrument 

reading for calibration at end of the monitoring day and the 

calculated percent difference from the initial calibration 

value).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 370 of 511

(5) Unsafe-to-inspect records. If you designate equipment 

as unsafe-to-inspect as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section, you must keep the records specified in paragraph 

(g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must maintain the identity of unsafe-to-inspect 

equipment as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(ii) You must keep a written plan for inspecting unsafe-toinspect equipment as required by paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section and record all activities performed according to the 

written plan.

(h) Closed vent systems in vacuum service. If you operate 

and maintain a closed vent system in vacuum service as defined 

in §63.12005, you must comply with the requirements in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section, and you are not 

required to comply with any other provisions of this section. 

Any incidence where a closed vent system designed to be in 

vacuum service is operating and not in vacuum service 

constitutes a violation of this rule, unless the closed vent 

system is meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) 

of this section for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum 

service. Any such incidence during a performance test 

invalidates the performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 371 of 511

(1) In vacuum service alarm. You must install, maintain, 

and operate a pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an 

operator immediately and automatically when the pressure is such 

that the closed vent system no longer meets the definition of in 

vacuum service as defined in §63.12005. The alarm must be 

located such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by 

an operator.

(2) In vacuum service alarm procedures. If the alarm is 

triggered for a closed vent system operating in vacuum service 

as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, you must 

immediately initiate procedures to identify the cause of the 

alarm. If the closed vent system is not in vacuum service, you 

must initiate procedures to get the closed vent system back in 

vacuum service as defined in §63.12005, or you must immediately 

comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of 

this section for closed vent systems that are not in vacuum 

service.

(3) In vacuum service alarm records and reports. For any 

incidences where a closed vent system designed to be in vacuum 

service is not in vacuum service, you must submit to the 

Administrator as part of your compliance report, the information

specified in §63.11985(b)(10). This report is required even if 

you elect to follow the procedures specified in §63.11895 to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 372 of 511

establish an affirmative defense and submit the reports 

specified in §63.11985(c)(4).

§63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to 

demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission 

standards for process vents?

(a) General requirements for CEMS and CPMS

(b) 

. You must meet 

the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for each CEMS 

specified in §63.11925(c) used to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. You must meet the CPMS requirements in paragraph (c) of 

this section and establish your operating limits in paragraph 

(d) of this section for each operating parameter specified in 

Table 5 to this subpart for each process vent control device 

specified in §63.11925(b) that is used to comply with the 

emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, except that flow indicators specified in §63.11940(a) 

are not subject to the requirements of this section.

CEMS

(1) You must prepare your quality control program and sitespecific performance evaluation test plan, as specified in 

§63.8(d) and (e). You must submit your performance evaluation 

. You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS 

according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section and 

continuously monitor emissions.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 373 of 511

test plan to the Administrator for approval, as specified in 

§63.8(e)(3).

(2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a 

continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 

minutes.

(3) You must conduct initial and periodic site-specific 

performance evaluations and any required tests of each CEMS 

according to your quality control program and site-specific 

performance evaluation test plan prepared as specified in 

§63.8(d) and (e).

(4) If supplemental gases are added to the control device, 

you must correct the measured concentrations in accordance with 

§63.11945(d)(3).

(5) You must operate and maintain the CEMS in continuous 

operation according to the quality control program and 

performance evaluation test plan. CEMS must record data at least 

once every 15 minutes.

(6) CEMS must meet the minimum accuracy and calibration 

frequency requirements specified in the performance 

specifications specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of 

this section, as applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 374 of 511

(i) A hydrogen chloride or dioxin/furan CEMS must meet the 

requirements of the promulgated performance specification for 

the CEMS.

(ii) A total hydrocarbon CEMS must meet the requirements of 

40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, performance specification 8A.

(7) Before commencing or ceasing use of a CEMS system, you 

must notify the Administrator as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system.

(ii) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in 

which case you must also conduct a performance test within 60 

days of ceasing operation of the system.

(c) CPMS

(1) As part of your quality control program and sitespecific performance evaluation test plan prepared as specified 

in §63.8(d) and (e), you must prepare a site-specific monitoring 

plan that addresses the monitoring system design, data 

collection, and the quality assurance and quality control 

elements specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this 

. You must install, maintain, and operate each CPMS 

as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section 

and continuously monitor operating parameters.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 375 of 511

section and §63.8(d). You are not required to submit the plan 

for approval unless requested by the Administrator. You may 

request approval of monitoring system quality assurance and 

quality control procedure alternatives to those specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section in your sitespecific monitoring plan.

(i) The performance criteria and design specifications for 

the monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, 

detector signal analyzer, and data acquisition and calculations.

(ii) Sampling interface (e.g.

(iii) Equipment performance checks, calibrations, or other 

audit procedures.

, thermocouple) location such 

that the monitoring system will provide representative 

measurements.

(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with provisions in §63.8(c)(1) and (3).

(v) Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping procedures in 

accordance with provisions in §63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).

(2) The monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a 

continuous record, recording data at least once every 15 

minutes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 376 of 511

(3) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS

according to the procedures and requirements in your sitespecific monitoring plan.

(4) You must conduct an initial and periodic site-specific 

performance evaluation tests of each CPMS according to your 

site-specific monitoring plan.

(5) All CPMS must meet the specific parameter (e.g.

(6) Monitoring equipment for temperature, pressure, 

volumetric flow rate, mass flow rate and conductivity must be 

capable of measuring the appropriate parameter over a range that 

extends at least 20 percent beyond the normal expected operating 

range of values for that parameter. The data recording system 

associated with affected CPMS must have a resolution that is 

equal to or better than one-half of the required system 

accuracy.

, 

minimum accuracy and calibration frequency) requirements 

specified in §63.11940 and Table 7 to this subpart.

(d) Establish operating limit. For each operating parameter 

that must be monitored in §63.11925(c) for process vent control 

devices, you must establish an operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. You must 

establish each operating limit as an operating parameter range, 

minimum operating parameter level, or maximum operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 377 of 511

parameter level as specified in Table 6 to this subpart. Where 

this subpart does not specify which format to use for your 

operating limit (e.g.

(1) For process vent control devices, the operating limit 

established for each monitored parameter specified in §63.11940 

must be based on the operating parameter values recorded during 

any performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance as 

required by §63.11925(d)(4) and (e)(4) and may be supplemented 

by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's 

recommendations. You are not required to conduct performance 

tests over the entire range of allowed operating parameter 

values. The established operating limit must represent the 

conditions for which the control device is meeting the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

, operating range or minimum operating 

level), you must determine which format is best to establish 

proper operation of the control device such that you are meeting 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(2) You must include as part of the notification of 

compliance status or the operating permit application or 

amendment, the information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) 

of this section, as applicable, for each process vent control 

device requiring operating limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 378 of 511

(i) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring 

frequencies and operating scenarios.

(ii) The established operating limit of the monitored 

parameter(s).

(iii) The rationale for the established operating limit, 

including any data and calculations used to develop the 

operating limit and a description of why the operating limit 

indicates proper operation of the control device.

(iv) The rationale used to determine which format to use 

for your operating limit (e.g.

(3) For batch processes, you may establish operating limits 

for individual batch emission episodes, including each distinct 

episode of process vent emissions or each individual type of 

batch process that generates wastewater, if applicable. You must 

provide rationale in a batch precompliance report as specified 

in §63.11985(c)(2) instead of the notification of compliance 

status for the established operating limit. You must include any 

data and calculations used to develop the operating limits and a 

description of why each operating limit indicates proper 

operation of the control device during the specific batch 

emission episode.

, operating range, minimum 

operating level or maximum operating level), where this subpart 

does not specify which format to use.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 379 of 511

(4) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for 

different batch emission episodes within a batch process as 

specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must maintain 

daily records indicating each point at which you change from one 

operating limit to another, even if the monitoring duration for 

an operating limit is less than 15 minutes. You must maintain a 

daily record according to §63.11990(e)(4)(i).

(e) Reduction of CPMS and CEMS data

§63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet 

for control devices required to install CPMS to meet the 

emission limits for process vents?

. You must reduce CEMS 

and CPMS data to 1-hour averages according to §63.8(g) to 

compute the average values for demonstrating compliance 

specified in §§63.11925(e)(3)(ii), 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B), 

63.11960(c)(2) and 63.11975(a)(2) for CEMS and CPMS, as 

applicable.

As required in §63.11925(c), you must install and operate 

the applicable CPMS specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of 

this section for each control device you use to comply with the 

emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. You must monitor, record, and calculate CPMS data 

averages as specified in Table 6 to this subpart. Paragraph (h) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 380 of 511

of this section provides an option to propose alternative 

monitoring parameters or procedures.

(a) Flow indicator

(b) 

. If flow to a control device could be 

intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow 

indicator at the inlet or outlet of the control device to 

identify periods of no flow.

Thermal oxidizer monitoring

(1) If a thermal oxidizer other than a catalytic thermal 

oxidizer is used, you must install a temperature monitoring 

device in the fire box or in the ductwork immediately downstream 

of the fire box in a position before any substantial heat 

exchange occurs.

. If you are using a thermal 

oxidizer to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in 

§63.11925(c), you must equip the thermal oxidizer with the 

monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 

of this section, as applicable.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 

where a catalytic thermal oxidizer is used, you must install 

temperature monitoring devices in the gas stream immediately 

before and after the catalyst bed. You must monitor the 

temperature differential across the catalyst bed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 381 of 511

(3) Instead of complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, and if the temperature differential between the inlet 

and outlet of the catalytic thermal oxidizer during normal 

operating conditions is less than 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees 

Fahrenheit), you may elect to monitor the inlet temperature and 

conduct catalyst checks as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and 

(ii) of this section.

(i) You must conduct annual sampling and analysis of the 

catalyst activity (i.e.

(ii) You must conduct annual internal inspections of the 

catalyst bed to check for fouling, plugging, or mechanical 

breakdown. You must also inspect the bed for channeling, 

abrasion, and settling. If problems are found during the annual 

internal inspection of the catalyst, you must replace the 

catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent with the 

manufacturer's recommendations within 15 days or by the next 

time any process vent stream is collected by the control device, 

, conversion efficiency) following the 

manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's recommended procedures. If 

problems are found during the catalyst activity test, you must 

replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action 

consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations within 15 

days or by the next time any process vent stream is collected by 

the control device, whichever is sooner.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 382 of 511

whichever is later. If the catalyst bed is replaced and is not 

of like or better kind and quality as the old catalyst then you 

must conduct a new performance test according to §63.11945 to 

determine destruction efficiency. If a catalyst bed is replaced 

and the replacement catalyst is of like or better kind and 

quality as the old catalyst, then a new performance test to 

determine destruction efficiency is not required.

(c) Absorber and acid gas scrubber monitoring

(1) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as 

specified in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.

. If you are 

using an absorber or acid gas scrubber to meet an emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS 

as specified in §63.11925(c), you must install the monitoring 

equipment specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

(i) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas 

scrubber influent liquid flow.

(ii) A flow meter to monitor the absorber or acid gas 

scrubber influent liquid flow and the gas stream flow using one 

of the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A), (B), or 

(C) of this section. You must monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio 

determined by dividing the flow rate of the absorber or acid gas 

scrubber influent by the gas flow rate. The units of measure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 383 of 511

must be consistent with those used to calculate this ratio 

during the performance test.

(A) Determine gas stream flow using the design blower 

capacity, with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop.

(B) Measure the gas stream flow at the absorber or acid gas 

scrubber inlet.

(C) If you have previously determined compliance for a 

scrubber that requires a determination of the liquid-to-gas 

ratio, you may use the results of that test provided the test 

conditions are representative of current operation.

(2) Install and operate the monitoring equipment as 

specified in either paragraph (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section.

(i) Install and operate pressure gauges at the inlet and 

outlet of the absorber or acid gas scrubber to monitor the 

pressure drop through the absorber or acid gas scrubber.

(ii) If the difference in the inlet gas stream temperature 

and the inlet liquid stream temperature is greater than 38 

degrees Celsius, you may install and operate a temperature 

monitoring device at the scrubber gas stream exit.

(iii) If the difference between the specific gravity of the 

scrubber effluent scrubbing fluid and specific gravity of the 

scrubber inlet scrubbing fluid is greater than or equal to 0.02 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 384 of 511

specific gravity units, you may install and operate a specific 

gravity monitoring device on the inlet and outlet of the 

scrubber.

(3) If the scrubbing liquid is a reactant (e.g.

(i) A pH monitoring device to monitor the pH of the 

scrubber liquid effluent.

, lime, 

ammonia hydroxide), you must install and operate one of the 

devices listed in either paragraph (c)(3)(i), (ii) or (iii) of 

this section.

(ii) A caustic strength monitoring device to monitor the 

caustic strength of the scrubber liquid effluent.

(iii) A conductivity monitoring device to monitor the 

conductivity of the scrubber liquid effluent.

(d) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. If you are using a 

regenerative adsorber to meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart and you are required to use CPMS as specified in 

§63.11925(c), you must install and operate the applicable 

monitoring equipment listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of 

this section, and comply with the requirements in paragraphs 

(d)(6) and (7) of this section. If the adsorption system water 

is wastewater as defined in §63.12005, then it is subject to the 

requirements of §63.11965.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 385 of 511

(1) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an integrating 

regeneration stream flow monitoring device having an accuracy of 

±10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream 

mass for each regeneration cycle. For non-vacuum regeneration 

systems, an integrating regeneration stream flow monitoring 

device capable of continuously recording the total regeneration 

stream mass flow for each regeneration cycle.

(2) For non-vacuum regeneration systems, an adsorber bed 

temperature monitoring device, capable of continuously recording 

the adsorber bed temperature after each regeneration and within 

15 minutes of completing any temperature regulation (cooling or 

warming to bring bed temperature closer to vent gas temperature) 

portion of the regeneration cycle.

(3) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, an 

adsorber bed temperature monitoring device capable of 

continuously recording the bed temperature during regeneration, 

except during any temperature regulating (cooling or warming to 

bring bed temperature closer to vent gas temperature) portion of 

the regeneration cycle.

(4) For a vacuum regeneration system, a pressure 

transmitter installed in the vacuum pump suction line capable of 

continuously recording the vacuum level for each minute during 

regeneration. You must establish a minimum target and a length 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 386 of 511

of time at which the vacuum must be below the minimum target 

during regeneration.

(5) A device capable of monitoring the regeneration 

frequency (i.e.

(6) You must perform a verification of the adsorber during 

each day of operation. The verification must be through visual 

observation or through an automated alarm or shutdown system 

that monitors and records system operational parameters. The 

verification must verify that the adsorber is operating with 

proper valve sequencing and cycle time.

, operating time since last regeneration) and 

duration.

(7) You must conduct weekly measurements of the carbon bed 

outlet volatile organic compounds concentration over the last 5 

minutes of an adsorption cycle for each carbon bed. For 

regeneration cycles longer than 1 week, you must perform the 

measurement over the last 5 minutes of each adsorption cycle for 

each carbon bed. The outlet concentration of volatile organic 

compounds must be measured using a portable analyzer, in 

accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, for 

open-ended lines. Alternatively, outlet concentration of HAP(s) 

may be measured using chromatographic analysis using Method 18 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 387 of 511

(e) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring

(1) Establish the average adsorber bed life by conducting 

daily monitoring of the outlet volatile organic compound or HAP 

concentration, as specified in this paragraph (e)(1), of the 

first adsorber bed in series until breakthrough occurs for the 

first three adsorber bed change-outs. The outlet concentration 

of volatile organic compounds must be measured using a portable 

analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, for open-ended lines. Alternatively, outlet 

concentration of HAP may be measured using chromatographic 

analysis using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6. 

Breakthrough of the bed is defined as the time when the level of 

HAP detected is at the highest concentration allowed to be 

discharged from the adsorber system.

. If you are using 

a non-regenerative adsorber, or canister type system that is 

sent off site for regeneration or disposal, to meet an emission 

limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are required to 

use CPMS as specified in §63.11925(c), you must install a system 

of dual adsorber units in series and conduct the monitoring and 

bed replacement as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 

this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 388 of 511

(2) Once the average life of the bed is determined, conduct 

ongoing monitoring as specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section.

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) 

of this section, conduct daily monitoring of the adsorber bed 

outlet volatile organic compound or HAP concentration, as 

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(ii) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent 

has more than 2 months of life remaining, as determined by the 

average primary adsorber bed life, established in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section, and the date the adsorbent was last 

replaced.

(iii) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent 

has more than 2 weeks of life remaining, as determined by the 

average primary adsorber bed life, established in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section, and the date the adsorbent was last 

replaced.

(3) The first adsorber in series must be replaced 

immediately when breakthrough is detected between the first and 

second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh 

canister) will become the new first adsorber and a fresh 

adsorber will become the second adsorber. For purposes of this 

paragraph (e)(3), "immediately" means within 8 hours of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 389 of 511

detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55 gallons or less, 

and within 24 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for 

adsorbers greater than 55 gallons.

(4) In lieu of replacing the first adsorber immediately, 

you may elect to monitor the outlet of the second canister 

beginning on the day the breakthrough between the first and 

second canister is identified and each day thereafter. This 

daily monitoring must continue until the first canister is 

replaced. If the constituent being monitored is detected at the 

outlet of the second canister during this period of daily 

monitoring, both canisters must be replaced within 8 hours of 

the time of detection of volatile organic compounds or HAP at 90 

percent of the allowed level (90 percent of breakthrough 

definition).

(f) Condenser monitoring

(g) 

. If you are using a condenser to 

meet an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you 

are required to use CPMS as specified in §63.11925(c), you must 

install and operate a condenser exit gas temperature monitoring 

device.

Other control devices. If you use a control device 

other than those listed in this subpart to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and you are 

required to use CPMS as specified in §63.11925(c), you must 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 390 of 511

comply with the requirements as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (2) of this section.

(1) Submit a description of the planned monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting procedures. The Administrator will 

approve, deny or modify the proposed monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the plan or 

through the review of the permit application or by other 

appropriate means.

(2) You must establish operating limits for monitored 

parameters that are approved by the Administrator. To establish 

the operating limit, the information required in §63.11935(d) 

must be submitted in the notification of compliance status 

report specified in §63.11985(a).

(h) Alternatives to monitoring requirements

(1) You may request approval to use alternatives to the 

continuous operating parameter monitoring listed in this 

section, as specified in §§63.11985(c)(4) and 63.8.

.

(2) You may request approval to monitor a different 

parameter than those established in §63.11935(d) or to set 

unique monitoring parameters, as specified in §§63.11985(c)(5) 

and 63.8. Until permission to use an alternative monitoring 

parameter has been granted by the Administrator, you remain 

subject to the requirements of this subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 391 of 511

§63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for 

process vents?

(a) General

(b) 

. For each control device used to meet the 

emission limits for process vents in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must conduct the initial and periodic performance 

tests required in §63.11925(d) and (e) and as specified in 

§63.11896 using the applicable test methods and procedures 

specified in Table 8 to this subpart and paragraphs (b) through 

(d) of this section.

Process operating conditions

(1) 

. You must conduct 

performance tests under the conditions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. In all cases, a site-specific plan must be 

submitted to the Administrator for approval prior to testing in 

accordance with §63.7(c). The test plan must include the 

emission profiles described in §63.11925(g).

Continuous process vents. For continuous process vents, 

you must conduct all performance tests at maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process. For continuous compliance, 

you must conduct subsequent performance tests within the range 

of operating limit(s) that were established for the control 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 392 of 511

device during the initial or subsequent performance tests 

specified in §63.11925(d) and (e). If an operating limit is a 

range, then you must conduct subsequent performance tests within 

the range of maximum or minimum operating limits for the control 

device, which result in highest emissions (i.e.

(2) 

, lowest emission 

reduction).

Batch process operations

(3) 

. Testing must be conducted at 

absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case 

conditions as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

Combination of both continuous and batch unit 

operations. You must conduct performance tests when the batch 

process vents are operating at absolute worst-case conditions or 

hypothetical worst-case conditions, as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section, and at maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process. For continuous compliance, 

you must operate the control device as close as possible to your 

operating limit(s) for the control device established during the 

initial or subsequent performance tests specified in §63.11925 

(d) and (e). If an operating limit is a range, then you must 

operate the control device as close as possible to the maximum 

or minimum operating limit for the control device, whichever 

results in higher emissions (i.e., lower emission reduction), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 393 of 511

unless the Administrator specifies or approves alternate 

operating conditions.

(c) Batch worst-case conditions

(1) 

. The absolute worst-case 

conditions for batch process operations must be characterized by 

the criteria presented in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The 

hypothetical worst-case conditions for batch process operations 

must be characterized by the criteria presented in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section. 

Absolute worst-case conditions

(i) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the 

control device contains the highest HAP mass loading rate, in 

pounds per hour, capable of being vented to the control device. 

An emission profile as described in §63.11925(g) must be used to 

identify the 1-hour period of maximum HAP loading.

. For batch process 

operations, absolute worst-case conditions are defined by the 

criteria presented in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if the 

maximum load is the most challenging condition for the control 

device. Otherwise, absolute worst-case conditions are defined by 

the conditions in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. You must 

consider all relevant factors, including load and compoundspecific characteristics in defining absolute worst-case 

conditions.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 394 of 511

(ii) The period of time when the HAP loading or stream 

composition (including non-HAP) is most challenging for the 

control device. These conditions include, but are not limited to 

the following:

(A) Periods when the stream contains the highest combined 

organic load, in pounds per hour, described by the emission 

profiles in §63.11925(g).

(B) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that 

approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.

(C) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that 

approach limits of adsorptivity for adsorption systems.

(2) Hypothetical worst-case conditions

(3) 

. For batch process 

operations, hypothetical worst-case conditions are simulated 

test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest hourly 

HAP load of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to 

the control device based on the emissions profiles described in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) or (iii) of this section.

Emission profile. For batch process operations, you 

must develop an emission profile for the vent to the control 

device that describes the characteristics of the vent stream at 

the inlet to the control device under worst-case conditions. The 

emission profile must be developed based on any one of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 395 of 511

procedures described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of 

this section.

(i) Emission profile by process

(ii) 

. The emission profile must 

consider all batch emission episodes that could contribute to 

the vent stack for a period of time that is sufficient to 

include all processes venting to the stack and must consider 

production scheduling. The profile must describe the HAP load to 

the device that equals the highest sum of emissions from the 

episodes that can vent to the control device in any given hour. 

Emissions per episode must be calculated using the procedures 

specified in §63.11950. Emissions per episode must be divided by 

the duration of the episode only if the duration of the episode 

is longer than 1 hour.

Emission profile by equipment. The emission profile 

must consist of emissions that meet or exceed the highest 

emissions, in pounds per hour that would be expected under 

actual processing conditions. The profile must describe 

equipment configurations used to generate the emission events, 

volatility of materials processed in the equipment, and the 

rationale used to identify and characterize the emission events. 

The emissions may be based on using a compound more volatile 

than compounds actually used in the process(es), and the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 396 of 511

emissions may be generated from all equipment in the process(es) 

or only selected equipment.

(iii) Emission profile by capture and control device 

limitation. The emission profile must consider the capture and 

control system limitations and the highest emissions, in pounds 

per hour that can be routed to the control device, based on 

maximum flow rate and concentrations possible because of 

limitations on conveyance and control equipment (e.g.

(d) 

, fans and 

lower explosive level alarms).

Concentration correction calculation

(1) Determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons, 

total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride 

corrected to 3-percent oxygen (Cc) using Equation 1 of this 

section.

. If a combustion 

device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is 

used to combust the emissions, the concentration of total 

hydrocarbons, total organic HAP, vinyl chloride, and hydrogen 

chloride must be corrected as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or 

(2) of this section. If a control device other than a combustion 

device is used to comply with an outlet concentration emission 

limit for batch process vents, you must correct the actual 

concentration for supplemental gases as specified in paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 397 of 511

















− =

d

c m O

C C

20 9 2

17 9

. %

.

(Eq. 1)

Where:

Cc = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic 

HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride corrected 

to 3-percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per million 

by volume. 

Cm = Concentration of total hydrocarbons, total organic 

HAP, vinyl chloride, or hydrogen chloride, dry 

basis, parts per million by volume.

%O2d = Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percentage by 

volume.

(2) To determine the oxygen concentration, you must use the 

emission rate correction factor (or excess air), integrated 

sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses" [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14).

(3) Correct the measured concentration for supplemental 

gases using Equation 2 of this section. Process knowledge and 

representative operating data may be used to determine the 

fraction of the total flow due to supplemental gas.















 + =

a

s a a m Q

Q Q C C

(Eq. 2)

Where:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 398 of 511

Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of HAP, dry basis, 

parts per million by volume (ppmv).

Cm = Actual concentration of HAP measured at control 

device outlet, dry basis, ppmv.

Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams 

vented to the control device, except supplemental 

gases.

Qs = total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases.

§63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an emission 

profile?

When developing your emission profiles for batch process 

vents as required in §63.11925(g), except as specified in 

paragraph (i) of this section, you must calculate emissions from 

episodes caused by vapor displacement, purging a partially 

filled vessel, heating, depressurization, vacuum operations, gas 

evolution, air drying, or empty vessel purging, using the 

applicable procedures in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this 

section.

(a) Vapor displacement. You must calculate emissions from 

vapor displacement due to transfer of material using Equation 1

of this section.

∑ ( )

=





 



 =

n

i

Pi MWi RT

V

E

1 (Eq. 1)

Where:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 399 of 511

E = Mass of HAP emitted.

V = Volume of gas displaced from the vessel.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.

Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP.

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

(b) Gas sweep of a partially filled vessel. You must 

calculate emissions from purging a partially filled vessel using 

Equation 2 of this section. The pressure of the vessel vapor 

space may be set equal to 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). You 

must multiply the HAP partial pressure in Equation 2 of this 

section by a HAP-specific saturation factor determined in 

accordance with Equations 3 through 5 of this section. Solve 

Equation 3 of this section iteratively beginning with saturation 

factors (in the right-hand side of the equation) of 1.0 for each 

condensable compound. Stop iterating when the calculated 

saturation factors for all compounds are the same to two 

significant figures for subsequent iterations. Note that for 

multi-component emission streams, saturation factors must be 

calculated for all condensable compounds, not just the HAP.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 400 of 511





























−





 



 =

∑

∑

=

=

m

j

T j

T

n

i

i i

P P

P

RT

Vt E PMW

1

1 ( )

(Eq. 2) 

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.

V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas at the 

temperature and pressure of the vessel vapor space.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.

Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at saturated 

conditions.

Pj = Partial pressure of individual condensable 

compounds (including HAP) at saturated conditions.

PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space.

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.

t = Time of purge.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

j = Identifier for a condensable compound.

m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in 

the emission stream.

∑=

+ +

= n

i

sat

i i i

i

i

K A V S V

K A S

1 (Eq. 3)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 401 of 511





 



 −

=

∑=

n

i

T i

i sat

i

P P

VP V

1

(Eq. 4)

1/ 3















 =

i

o

i o M

M K K

(Eq. 5)

Where:

Si = Saturation factor for individual condensable 

compounds.

Pi = Partial pressure of individual condensable 

compounds at saturated conditions.

PT = Pressure of the vessel vapor space.

A = Surface area of liquid.

V = Purge flow rate of the noncondensable gas.

Visat = Volumetric flow rate of individual condensable 

compounds at saturated vapor pressure.

Ki = Mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable 

compounds in the emission stream.

Ko = Mass transfer coefficient of reference compound 

(e.g.

Mo = Molecular weight of reference compound (

, 0.83 cm/s for water).

e.g.

Mi = Molecular weight of individual condensable 

compounds in the emission stream.

, 18.02 

for water).

n = Number of condensable compounds in the emission 

stream.

(c) Heating. You must calculate emissions caused by the 

heating of a vessel to a temperature lower than the boiling 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 402 of 511

point using the procedures in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

If the contents of a vessel are heated to the boiling point, you 

must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents 

are heated is lower than the boiling point of the HAP in the 

vessel, you must calculate the mass of HAP emitted per episode 

using Equation 6 of this section. The average gas space molar 

volume during the heating process is calculated using Equation 7

of this section. The difference in the number of moles of 

condensable in the vessel headspace between the initial and 

final temperatures is calculated using Equation 8 of this 

section.

( )

( ) ( )

























− −

























−

−

=

∑

∑

=

=

,2 ,1

1

,2

1

,1

ln n i i

i

T i

n

i

T i

HAP avg n n

P P

P P

E MW N

(Eq. 6)

Where:

E = Mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being 

heated.

Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating 

process.

PT = Total pressure in the vessel.

Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 

initial temperature (T1).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 403 of 511

Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 

final temperature (T2).

MWHAP = Average molecular weight of the HAP compounds 

calculated using Equation 13 of this section.

ni,1 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel 

headspace at initial temperature (T1).

ni,2 = Number of moles of condensable in the vessel 

headspace at final temperature (T2).

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

ln = Natural logarithm.















 = +

2

1

1

1

2R T T

VPT Navg (Eq. 7)

Where:

Navg = Average gas space molar volume during the heating 

process.

V = Volume of free space in vessel.

PT = Total pressure in the vessel.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel.

T2 = Final temperature of the vessel.

( ) ∑ ∑ = =

− = −

n

i

i

n

i

i i i P

RT

V P

RT

V

n n

1

,1

1 1

,2

2

,2 ,1 (Eq. 8)

Where:

V = Volume of free space in vessel.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T1 = Initial temperature in the vessel.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 404 of 511

T2 = Final temperature in the vessel.

Pi,1 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 

T1.

Pi,2 = Partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 

T2.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream. 

(2) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents 

are heated is at the boiling point or higher, you must calculate 

emissions using the procedure in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) 

of this section.

(i) To calculate the emissions from heating to the boiling 

point use Equations 9, 10 and 11 of this section. (Note that Pa2 

= 0 in the calculation of Δη in Equation 10 of this section.)

∑( )

∑

=

=

−

=∆ × m

j

T j

HAP

n

i

i

P P

PMW

E

1

1 η

(Eq. 9)

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.

Δη = The number of moles of noncondensable displaced 

from the vessel, as calculated using Equation 10 of 

this section.

PT = Pressure in the receiver.

Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP determined 

at the exit temperature of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 405 of 511

Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable 

(including HAP) determined at the exit temperature 

of the condenser or at the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

j = Identifier for a condensable compound.

MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor 

exiting the dedicated receiver, as calculated using 

Equation 11 of this section with partial pressures 

determined at the exit temperature and exit 

pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver.

m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in 

the emission stream.































 − 













 ∆ =

2

2

1

1

T

Pa

T

Pa

R

V

η (Eq. 10)

(( ) ( ) )

(( ) ( ) ) ∑

∑ =

=

+

+ =

n

i

n

i

i T i T

i T i T i

HAP

P P

P P MW

MW

1

1 1 2

1 2

(Eq. 11)

Where:

Δη = Number of moles of noncondensable gas displaced 

from the vessel.

V = Volume of free space in the vessel.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T1 = Initial temperature of vessel contents, absolute.

T2 = Final temperature of vessel contents, absolute.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 406 of 511

Pan = Partial pressure of noncondensable gas in the 

vessel headspace at initial (n=1) and final (n=2) 

temperature.

MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP in vapor 

exiting the dedicated receiver.

(Pi)Tn = Partial pressure of each HAP in the vessel 

headspace at initial (T1) and final (T2) 

temperature of the receiver.

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

(ii) While boiling, the vessel must be operated with a 

properly operated process condenser. An initial demonstration 

that a process condenser is properly operated must be conducted 

during the boiling operation and documented in the notification 

of compliance status report described in §63.11985(a). You must 

either measure the liquid temperature in the receiver or the 

temperature of the gas stream exiting the condenser and show it 

is less than the boiling or bubble point of the HAP in the 

vessel; or perform a material balance around the vessel and 

condenser and show that at least 99 percent of the recovered HAP 

vaporized while boiling is condensed. This demonstration is not 

required if the process condenser is followed by a condenser 

acting as a control device or if the control device is monitored 

using a CEMS.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 407 of 511

(d) Depressurization. You must calculate emissions from 

depressurization using Equation 12 of this section.

∑

∑

∑

=

×





































=

−

=

−

= ×

n

i

Pi MWi m

j

P Pj

m

j

P Pj

RT

V

E

1

1

2

1

1

( )( )

( )

( )

ln

(Eq. 12)

Where:

E = Emissions.

V = Free volume in vessel being depressurized.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T = Temperature of the vessel, absolute.

P1 = Initial pressure in the vessel.

P2 = Final pressure in the vessel.

Pj = Partial pressure of the individual condensable 

compounds (including HAP).

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP compounds.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

m = Number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in 

the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.

j = Identifier for a condensable compound.

ln = Natural logarithm.

(e) Vacuum systems. You must calculate emissions from 

vacuum systems using Equation 13 of this section if the air 

leakage rate is known or can be approximated. The receiving 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 408 of 511

vessel is part of the vacuum system for purposes of this 

subpart.





























−

=

∑

∑

=

=

m

j

T j

n

i

i i

nc P P

P MW

MW

La t E

1

1

( )

( )( )

(Eq. 13)

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.

PT = Absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector 

outlet conditions, if there is no receiver.

Pi = Partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver 

temperature or the ejector outlet conditions.

Pj = Partial pressure of condensable (including HAP) at 

the receiver temperature or the ejector outlet 

conditions.

La = Total air leak rate in the system, mass/time.

MWnc = Molecular weight of noncondensable gas.

t = Time of vacuum operation.

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP in the 

emission stream, with HAP partial pressures 

calculated at the temperature of the receiver or 

ejector outlet, as appropriate.

(f) Gas evolution

(g) 

. You must calculate emissions from gas 

evolution using Equation 13 in paragraph (e) of this section 

with mass flow rate of gas evolution, Wg, substituted for La.

Air drying. You must calculate emissions from air 

drying using Equation 14 of this section:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 409 of 511

















− − − = ×

2 100

2

1 100

1

PS

PS

PS

PS

E B (Eq. 14)

Where:

E = Mass of HAP emitted.

B = Mass of dry solids.

PS1 = HAP in material entering dryer, weight percent.

PS2 = HAP in material exiting dryer, weight percent.

(h) Empty vessel purging. You must calculate emissions 

from empty vessel purging using Equation 15 of this section 

(Note: The term e-Ft/v can be assumed to be 0):



















 − − 















=

= × ∑ ) / ( )( ) ( Ft v e

n

i

Pi MWi RT

V

E 1

1 (Eq. 15)

Where:

V = Volume of empty vessel.

R = Ideal gas law constant.

T = Temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute.

Pi = Partial pressure of the individual HAP at the 

beginning of the purge.

MWi = Molecular weight of the individual HAP.

F = Flow rate of the purge gas.

t = Duration of the purge.

n = Number of HAP compounds in the emission stream.

i = Identifier for a HAP compound.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 410 of 511

(i) Engineering assessments

(1) Previous test results provided the tests are 

representative of current operating practices at the process 

unit.

. You must conduct an 

engineering assessment to calculate HAP emissions or emission 

episodes from each process vent that are not due to vapor 

displacement, partially filled vessel purging, heating, 

depressurization, vacuum operations, gas evolution, air drying 

or empty vessel purging. An engineering assessment may also be 

used to support a finding that the emissions estimation 

equations in this section are inappropriate. All data, 

assumptions and procedures used in the engineering assessment 

must be documented, are subject to preapproval by the 

Administrator, and must be reported in the batch precompliance 

report. An engineering assessment should include, but is not 

limited to, the items listed in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of 

this section.

(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of 

the process under representative operating conditions.

(3) Maximum flow rate, HAP emission rate, concentration, or 

other relevant parameter specified or implied within a permit 

limit applicable to the process vent.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 411 of 511

(4) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering 

principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods 

include, but are not limited to the following:

(i) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry 

to estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations.

(ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical 

equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.

(iii) Estimation of HAP concentrations based on saturation 

conditions.

§63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for other emission sources?

(a) Before opening any process component (including prepolymerization reactors used in the manufacture of bulk resins) 

for any reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride must be reduced 

to an amount that occupies a volume of no more than 2.0 percent 

of the component's or equipment’s containment volume, or 25 

gallons, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and 

pressure.

(b) Before opening a polymerization reactor for any reason, 

the quantity of vinyl chloride is not to exceed 0.04 pounds per 

ton of PVC product, with the product determined on a dry solids 

basis.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 412 of 511

(c) Any gas or vapor HAP removed from a process component 

in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must 

be vented to a closed vent system and control device meeting the 

requirements of §§63.11925 through 63.11950.

(d) Each gasholder in vinyl chloride service must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Each gasholder must be vented to a closed vent system 

and control device meeting the requirements of §§63.11925 

through 63.11950.

(2) Each gasholder must operate with one or more of the 

following installed on the water seal to reduce emissions:

(i) Floating balls;

(ii) Hollow floating disks;

(iii) Oil layer; and/or

(iv) Floating mats.

(3) Each gasholder must have established operating 

procedures that include provisions for ensuring that the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section are met at all 

times except during periods of maintenance or repair. The 

standard operating procedures must be developed and implemented 

and made available to the Administrator upon request.

§63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient 

monitoring?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 413 of 511

You must operate a reliable and accurate vinyl chloride 

monitoring system for detection of major leaks and 

identification of the general area of the affected source where 

a leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitoring system means a 

device which obtains air samples from one or more points on a 

continuous sequential basis and analyzes the samples with gas 

chromatography or, if you assume that all hydrocarbons measured 

are vinyl chloride, analyzes the samples with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, or an equivalent or 

alternative method. You must operate the vinyl chloride 

monitoring system according to a program that you develop for 

your affected source. You must submit a description of the 

program to the Administrator within 45 days of your compliance 

date, unless a waiver of compliance is granted by the 

Administrator, or the program has been approved and the 

Administrator does not request a review of the program. Approval 

of a program will be granted by the Administrator provided the 

Administrator finds:

(a) The location and number of points to be monitored and 

the frequency of monitoring provided for in the program are 

acceptable when they are compared with the number of pieces of 

equipment in vinyl chloride service and size and physical layout 

of the affected source.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 414 of 511

(b) It contains a definition of leak which is acceptable 

when compared with the background concentrations of vinyl 

chloride in the areas of the plant to be monitored by the vinyl 

chloride monitoring system. Measurements of background 

concentrations of vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to be 

monitored by the vinyl chloride monitoring system are to be 

included with the description of the program. The definition of 

leak for a given plant may vary among the different areas within 

the plant and is also to change over time as background 

concentrations in the plant are reduced.

(c) It contains an acceptable plan of action to be taken 

when a leak is detected.

(d) It provides for an acceptable calibration and 

maintenance schedule for the vinyl chloride monitoring system 

and portable hydrocarbon detector. For the vinyl chloride 

monitoring system, a daily span check must be conducted with a 

concentration of vinyl chloride equal to the concentration 

defined as a leak according to paragraph (b) of this section. 

The calibration must be done with either:

(1) A calibration gas mixture prepared from the gases 

specified in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of Method 106 at 40 CFR 

part 61, appendix B, and in accordance with section 10.1 of 

Method 106, or
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 415 of 511

(2) A calibration gas cylinder standard containing the 

appropriate concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas composition 

of the calibration gas cylinder standard must have been 

certified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must have 

recommended a maximum shelf life for each cylinder so that the 

concentration does not change greater than ±5 percent from the 

certified value. The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified 

vinyl chloride concentration, and recommended maximum shelf life 

must have been affixed to the cylinder before shipment from the 

manufacturer to the buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as the 

vinyl chloride monitoring system, these gas mixtures may be 

directly used to prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as 

described in Sections 8.1 and 9.2 of Method 106. The 

requirements in Sections 7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.2 of Method 106 for 

certification of cylinder standards and for establishment and 

verification of calibration standards are to be followed.

§63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance 

requirements for stripped resin?

(a) Emission limits. You must meet the applicable vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission 

limits for stripped resin specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 416 of 511

(b) Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP

(1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and 

continuous compliance as required in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section, you must meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section.

. 

You must develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are 

expected to be present in each grade of resin produced by your 

PVCPU. This list must be continuously updated and must be 

available for inspection by the Administrator. This list must 

include the identification of each grade of resin produced, each 

HAP expected to be present in that grade of resin, and the CAS 

number for each HAP.

(i) You must analyze each resin sample for all Table 10 HAP 

using the test methods specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section.

(ii) You must also analyze each resin sample for any HAP 

that are not a Table 10 HAP but are expected to be present in 

that resin sample based on your facility-specific list of HAP 

using the appropriate test method specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section.

(c) Demonstration of initial compliance. You must 

demonstrate initial compliance for each resin stripper or for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 417 of 511

each group of resin strippers used to process the same resin 

type.

(1) You must conduct an initial performance test for the 

resin stripper, measuring the concentration of vinyl chloride 

and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the stripped resin 

at the outlet of each resin stripper as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i) Use the test method(s) and procedures specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section.

(ii) Collect samples when the PVCPU is producing the resin 

grade of which you manufacture the most, based on the total mass 

per resin grade of a given resin type produced in the 12 months 

preceding the sampling event.

(iii) For continuous processes, during a 24-hour sampling 

period, for each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab sample at 

intervals of 8 hours or per grade of PVC produced, whichever is 

more frequent. Each sample must be taken as the resin flows out 

of the stripper.

(iv) For batch processes, during a 24-hour sampling period, 

for each batch of each resin grade produced, collect 1 grab 

sample for each batch. Each sample must be taken immediately 

following the completion of the stripping operation.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 418 of 511

(2) Demonstrate initial compliance with the vinyl chloride 

and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Calculate the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride 

and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations for each 

stripper for each resin grade produced during the 24-hour 

sampling period, using the vinyl chloride and non vinyl-chloride 

HAP concentrations measured for the grab samples collected as 

specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section and 

using the calculation procedure specified in paragraph (f) of 

this section to determine the total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP concentration of each sample.

(ii) Demonstrate compliance with the vinyl chloride and 

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission limits in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart based on the 24-hour arithmetic average 

concentrations calculated in either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or 

(B) of this section.

(A) If more than one resin grade was produced during the 

24-hour sampling period, use Equation 1 of this section to 

calculate the 24-hour grade weighted arithmetic average vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations 

for each stripper, or for each group of strippers used to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 419 of 511

process the same type of resin, using the 24-hour average vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations 

calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and the mass 

of each resin grade produced during the 24-hour sampling period.

(Eq.1)

Where:

AT

P

= 24-hour average concentration of resin type T, 

parts per million by weight (dry basis).

Gi

C

= Production of resin grade Gi, pounds.

Gi

Q

= 24-hour average concentration of vinyl chloride or 

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in resin grade 

Gi, ppmw.

T

(B) If only one resin grade was produced during the 24-hour 

sampling event, use the 24-hour arithmetic average vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations 

for the one resin grade calculated as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section for each stripper or calculate the 24-

hour arithmetic average vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP concentrations for all strippers used to 

process the one grade of resin.

= Total production of resin type T over the 24-hour 

sampling period, pounds.

(d) Demonstration of continuous compliance. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance for each resin stripper or for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 420 of 511

each group of resin strippers used to process the same resin 

type.

(1) On a daily basis, you must measure the concentration of 

vinyl chloride in stripped resin using the test method(s) and 

procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section, and the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section.

(2) On a monthly basis, you must measure the concentration 

of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in stripped resin using 

the test method(s) and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section, and the procedures specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section. 

(3) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP emission 

limit for stripped resin in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(e) Test methods and procedures for determining 

concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP. You must determine the concentration of vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test 

methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 421 of 511

make available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

(1) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you 

must use the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through 

(iv) of this section.

(i) SW-846-8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 3, February 

2007, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this subpart.

(ii) SW-846-8270D, Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February 

2007, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA 

Publication No. SW-846, Third Edition (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) for analysis of semivolatile organic 

compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart.

(iii) SW-846-8315A, Determination of Carbonyl Compounds by 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 1, 

December 1996, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

aldehyde compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 422 of 511

(iv) SW-846-8015C, Nonhalogenated Organics by Gas 

Chromatography, Revision 3, February 2007, in "Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

alcohol compounds listed in table 10 of this subpart.

(2) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 

at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B.

(3) When using the methods specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section, for sample collection, preservation, 

transport, and analysis, you must minimize loss of HAP and 

maintain sample integrity.

(f) Method for calculating total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP concentration. For each stripped resin sample analyzed using 

the methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section, 

calculate the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP 

analyzed as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of 

this section by using Equation 2 to this section. 

∑=

=

n

i

TNVCH Ci C

1 (Eq. 2)

Where:

CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 

compounds in the stripped resin sample, in parts per 

million by weight (ppmw).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 423 of 511

Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the 

stripped resin sample analyzed pursuant to paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section excluding 

vinyl chloride, in ppmw, where a value of zero should 

be used for any HAP concentration that is below the 

detection limit.

§63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for 

wastewater?

(a) The concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream 

containing greater than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart, measured immediately as it leaves a piece of 

process equipment and before being mixed with any other process 

wastewater stream, must be reduced to the limits specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The applicable limits in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart must be met before the process wastewater 

stream is mixed with any other process wastewater stream 

containing vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP concentrations less than the applicable limits specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, before being exposed to the 

atmosphere, and before being discharged from the affected 

source.

(b) Initial determination of process wastewater streams 

that need to be treated. You must determine which process 

wastewater streams require treatment as specified in paragraphs
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 424 of 511

(b)(1) and (2) of this section and meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.

(1) You must collect process wastewater samples as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) For treated process wastewater streams, you must 

collect process wastewater samples at the outlet of the 

treatment process and before the process wastewater stream is 

mixed with any other process wastewater stream containing vinyl 

chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations 

less than the applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before 

being discharged from the affected source. 

(ii) For untreated process wastewater streams, you must 

collect process wastewater samples at the location immediately 

as the stream leaves a piece of process equipment, before being 

mixed with any other process stream or process wastewater 

stream, before being exposed to the atmosphere, and before being 

discharged from the affected source. 

(2) You must measure the concentration of vinyl chloride 

and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods 

and procedures specified in §63.11980.

(c) Requirements for process wastewater streams that must 

be treated. Each process wastewater stream that has a vinyl 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 425 of 511

chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration 

equal to or greater than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart, determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section must be treated to reduce the concentration of vinyl 

chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP to below the 

applicable limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. You 

must route wastewater streams through hard-piping to the 

treatment process and route the vent stream from the treatment 

process to a closed vent system and control device meeting the 

requirements of §§63.11925 through 63.11950. You must also meet 

the initial and continuous compliance requirements specified in 

§63.11970(a) and §63.11975.

(d) Requirements for process wastewater streams that do not 

need to be treated

(e) 

. For each process wastewater stream that has 

a vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP 

concentration less than the limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart, determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section, you must meet the initial and continuous compliance 

requirements specified in §§63.11970(b) and 63.11975(c).

Maintenance wastewater

(f) 

. You must comply with the 

requirements specified in §63.105 of subpart F of this part.

Determination of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP. 

You must develop a facility-specific list of HAP that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 426 of 511

expected to be present in each process wastewater stream at your 

PVCPU. This list must be continuously updated and must be 

available for inspection by the Administrator. This list must 

include the identification of each HAP expected to be present in 

each process wastewater stream, and the CAS number for each HAP.

(1) For the purposes of demonstrating initial and 

continuous compliance as required in §§63.11970 and 63.11975 of 

this subpart, you must meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) You must analyze each process wastewater sample for all 

HAP listed in Table 10 to this subpart using the test methods 

specified in §63.11980(a)(2) and (3).

(ii) You must also analyze each process wastewater sample 

for any HAP that are not listed in Table 10 to this subpart but 

are expected to be present in that sample based on your 

facility-specific list of HAP using the appropriate test method 

specified in §63.11980(a)(2).

§63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for 

process wastewater?

(a) Demonstration of initial compliance for process 

wastewater streams that must be treated. For each process 

wastewater stream that must be treated as specified in 

§63.11965(b) and (c), you must conduct an initial performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 427 of 511

test for the wastewater treatment process, measuring the 

concentration of vinyl chloride and total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP in the wastewater stream at the outlet of the 

wastewater treatment process before the wastewater is exposed to 

the atmosphere, mixed with any other process stream, and before 

being discharged from the affected facility, using the test 

method(s) and procedures specified in §63.11980(a).

(b) Demonstration of initial compliance for process 

wastewater streams that are not required to be treated

§63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for 

process wastewater?

. For each 

process wastewater stream that has a vinyl chloride or total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentration less than the 

limits specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must use the 

measurement specified in §63.11965(b)(1)(ii) to demonstrate 

initial compliance.

(a) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated 

to reduce the concentration of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP as specified in §63.11965(b) and (c), you 

must demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section. For each process wastewater stream for 

which you initially determine in §63.11970(b) that treatment is 

not required to reduce either vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 428 of 511

chloride organic HAP concentration, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section.

(b) For each process wastewater stream that must be treated 

according to §63.11965(b), you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for vinyl chloride and total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart by following the procedures specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Following your demonstration of initial compliance in 

§63.11970(a), make monthly measurements of the vinyl chloride 

and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations using 

the procedures and methods specified in §63.11965(b)(1) and (2).

(2) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart on a monthly 

basis, using the monthly concentration measurement specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) For each wastewater stream for which you initially 

determine in §63.11970(b) that treatment is not required to 

reduce the vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP concentration, you must demonstrate continuous compliance as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 429 of 511

(1) Conduct annual performance tests, measuring the vinyl 

chloride and total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP concentrations 

using the procedures and methods specified in §63.11965(b)(1) 

and (2).

(2) If any annual performance test conducted as specified 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section results in a concentration 

of vinyl chloride or total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in the 

process wastewater stream that is greater than or equal to the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, then you must 

meet the requirements of §63.11965(c) and you must demonstrate 

initial and continuous compliance as specified in §63.11970 and 

this section.

§63.11980 What are the test methods and calculation procedures 

for process wastewater?

(a) Performance test methods and procedures

(1) You must conduct performance tests during worst-case 

operating conditions for the PVCPU when the process wastewater 

. You must 

determine the concentration of vinyl chloride and total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP using the test methods and procedures 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. Upon 

request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 430 of 511

treatment process is operating as close as possible to maximum 

operating conditions. If the wastewater treatment process will 

be operating at several different sets of operating conditions, 

you must supplement the testing with additional testing, 

modeling or engineering assessments to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits. 

(2) For measuring total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, you 

must conduct sampling and analysis using the methods specified 

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) SW-846-8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 3, February 

2007, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

volatile organic compounds listed in Table 10 of this subpart.

(ii) SW-846-8270D, Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February 

2007, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA 

Publication No. SW-846, Third Edition (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) for analysis of semivolatile organic 

compounds.

(iii) SW-846-8315A, Determination of Carbonyl Compounds by 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 1, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 431 of 511

December 1996, in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

aldehyde compounds.

(iv) SW-846-8015C, Nonhalogenated Organics by Gas 

Chromatography, Revision 3, February 2007, in "Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third 

Edition (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) for analysis of 

alcohol compounds.

(3) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 

at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B.

(4) When using the methods in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of 

this section, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Sample collection may consist of grab or composite 

samples.

(ii) Samples must be taken before the process wastewater 

stream is exposed to the atmosphere.

(iii) You must ensure that sample collection, preservation, 

transport, and analysis minimizes loss of HAP and maintains 

sample integrity.

(b) Method for calculating total non-vinyl chloride organic 

HAP concentration. For each process wastewater stream analyzed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 432 of 511

using the methods specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

calculate the sum of the measured concentrations of each HAP 

analyzed as required in §63.11965(f)(1) by using Equation 1 to 

this section.

∑=

=

n

i

TNVCH Ci C

1 (Eq. 1)

Where:

CTNVCH = Concentration of total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP, 

in parts per million by weight (ppmw).

Ci = Concentration of individual HAP present in the sample 

analyzed pursuant to §63.11965(f)(1) excluding vinyl 

chloride, in ppmw, where a value of zero should be 

used for any HAP concentration that is below the 

detection limit.

Notifications, Reports and Records

§63.11985 What notifications and reports must I submit and when?

In addition to the notifications and reports required in 

subpart A of this part, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, 

you must submit the additional information and reports specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, as applicable.

(a) Notification of compliance status. When submitting the 

notification of compliance status required in §63.9(h), you must 

also include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (9) of this section, as applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 433 of 511

(1) You must include an identification of the storage 

vessels subject to this subpart, including the capacity and 

liquid stored for each vessel. You must submit the information 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for each pressure 

vessel.

(2) You must include the information specified in 

§63.1039(a) for equipment leaks.

(3) You must include an identification of the heat exchange 

systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart.

(4) You must include the operating limit for each 

monitoring parameter identified for each control device used to 

meet the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

determined pursuant to §63.11935(d). This report must include 

the information in §63.11935(d)(2), as applicable.

(5) You must include the records specified in paragraphs 

(a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for 

process vents.

(i) You must include the performance test records specified 

in §63.11990(f)(1), as applicable. These reports must include 

one complete test report for each test method used for each 

process vent. A complete test report must include a brief 

process description, sampling site description, description of 

sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 434 of 511

standard procedures, quality assurance procedures, record of 

operating conditions during the test, record of preparation of 

standards, record of calibrations, raw data sheets for field 

sampling, raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses, 

documentation of calculations and any other information required 

by the test method. For additional tests performed for the same 

kind of emission point using the same method, the results and 

any other information required in applicable sections of this 

subpart must be submitted, but a complete test report is not 

required.

(ii) You must include the information specified in 

paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section for batch 

process vent operations.

(A) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing 

conditions for control devices including results of emissions 

profiles.

(B) Calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance 

according to §§63.11945 and 63.11950, including documentation of 

the proper operation of a process condenser(s) as specified in 

§63.11950(c)(2)(ii).

(C) Data and rationale used to support an engineering 

assessment to calculate emissions in accordance with 

§63.11950(i).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 435 of 511

(iii) If you use a control device other than those listed 

in §63.11940 for your process vent, then you must include a 

description of the parameters to be monitored to ensure the 

control device is operated in conformance with its design and 

achieves the specified emission limitation; an explanation of 

the criteria used to select the parameter; and a description of 

the methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that 

the parameter indicates proper operation of the control device, 

the schedule for this demonstration, and a statement that you 

will establish an operating limit for the monitored parameter as 

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(6) [Reserved]

(7) You must include the records specified in paragraphs 

(a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for resin 

strippers.

(i) You must include an identification of each resin 

stripper and resin type subject to the requirements of this 

subpart.

(ii) You must include results of the initial testing used 

to determine initial compliance with the stripped resin limits 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 436 of 511

(8) You must include the records specified in paragraphs 

(a)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, as applicable, for process 

wastewater.

(i) You must include an identification of each process 

wastewater stream subject to the requirements of this subpart, 

and the results of your determination for each stream as to 

whether it must be treated to meet the limits of Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart. You must also include a description of the 

treatment process to be used for each process wastewater stream

that requires treatment.

(ii) You must include results of the initial sampling used 

to determine initial compliance with the vinyl chloride and 

total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP limits in Table 1 or Table 

2 to this subpart.

(9) You must include a certification of compliance, signed 

by a responsible official, as applicable that states the 

following:

(i) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for storage vessels."

(ii) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for equipment leaks."

(iii) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for heat exchange systems."
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 437 of 511

(iv) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for HAP emissions from process vents."

(v) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for other emission sources."

(vi) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for the stripped resin."

(vii) "This facility complies with the requirements in this 

subpart for wastewater."

(b) Compliance reports

(1) You must include a copy of the inspection record 

specified in §63.11990(b)(2) for each storage vessel when a 

defect, failure, or leak is detected. You must also include a 

copy of the applicable information specified in §63.1039(b)(5) 

through (8) of subpart UU of this part for each pressure vessel.

. When submitting the excess 

emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report 

and summary report required in §63.10(e)(3), you must also 

include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(12) of this section, as applicable. This report is referred to 

in this subpart as your compliance report.

(2) You must include the information specified in 

§63.1039(b) for equipment leaks, except for releases from 

pressure relief devices. For any releases from pressure relief 

devices, you must submit the report specified in paragraph 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 438 of 511

(c)(7) of this section instead of the information specified in 

§63.1039(b)(4) of subpart UU of this part.

(3) You must include the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section for heat 

exchange systems.

(i) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service.

(ii) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service 

found to be leaking.

(iii) A summary of the monitoring data that indicate a 

leak, including the number of leaks determined to be equal to or 

greater than the leak definition.

(iv) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the 

date the source of the leak was identified and the date of 

repair.

(v) If applicable, a summary of each delayed repair, 

including the original date and reason for the delay and the 

date of repair, if repaired during the reporting period.

(vi) If applicable, an estimate of total VOC or vinyl 

chloride emissions for each delayed repair over the reporting 

period.

(4) You must include the records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for 

process vents, resin strippers, and wastewater.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 439 of 511

(i) Deviations using CEMS or CPMS. For each deviation from 

an emission limit or operating limit where a CEMS or CPMS is 

being used to comply with the process vent emission limits in 

Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(A) through (E) of this 

section.

(A) For CEMS, the 3-hour block average value calculated for 

any period when the value is higher than an emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart or when the value does not meet the 

data availability requirements defined in §63.11890(c).

(B) For CPMS, the average value calculated for any day 

(based on the data averaging periods for compliance specified in 

Table 5 to this subpart) that does not meet your operating limit 

established according to §63.11935(d) or that does not meet the 

data availability requirements specified in §63.11890(c).

(C) The cause for the calculated emission level or 

operating parameter level to not meet the established emission 

limit or operating limit.

(D) For deviations caused by lack of monitoring data, the 

duration of periods when monitoring data were not collected.

(E) Operating logs of batch process operations for each day 

during which the deviation occurred, including a description of 

the operating scenario(s) during the deviation.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 440 of 511

(ii) New operating scenario. Include each new operating 

scenario that has been operated since the time period covered by 

the last compliance report and has not been submitted in the 

notification of compliance status report or a previous 

compliance report. For each new operating scenario, you must 

provide verification that the operating conditions for any 

associated control or treatment device have not been exceeded 

and constitute proper operation for the new operating scenario. 

You must provide any required calculations and engineering 

analyses that have been performed for the new operating 

scenario. For the purposes of this paragraph (b)(4)(ii), a 

revised operating scenario for an existing process is considered 

to be a new operating scenario when one or more of the data 

elements listed in §63.11990(e)(4) have changed.

(iii) Process changes. You must document process changes, 

or changes made to any of the information submitted in the 

notification of compliance status report or a previous 

compliance report, that is not within the scope of an existing 

operating scenario, in the compliance report. The notification 

must include all of the information in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) 

through (C) of this section.

(A) A description of the process change.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 441 of 511

(B) Revisions to any of the information reported in the 

original notification of compliance status report as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section.

(C) Information required by the notification of compliance 

status report, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, for 

changes involving the addition of processes, components, or 

equipment at the affected source.

(5) You must submit the applicable information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section for process 

vents.

(i) For catalytic thermal oxidizers for which you have 

selected the alternative monitoring specified in 

§63.11940(b)(3), results of the annual catalyst sampling and 

inspections required by §63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii) including 

any subsequent corrective actions taken.

(ii) For regenerative adsorbers, results of the adsorber 

bed outlet volatile organic compounds concentration measurements 

specified in §63.11940(d)(7).

(iii) For non-regenerative adsorbers, results of the 

adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compounds concentration 

measurements specified in §63.11940(e)(2).

(6) You must include the records specified in §63.11990(j) 

for other emission sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 442 of 511

(7) For resin stripper operations, you must include results 

of daily vinyl chloride and monthly total non-vinyl chloride 

organic HAP concentration results for each resin type produced 

within the PVCPU that did not meet the stripped resin emission 

limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as applicable.

(8) You must include the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section for your 

wastewater streams.

(i) Results of daily vinyl chloride and monthly total nonvinyl chloride organic HAP concentration results for each 

process wastewater stream discharged from the affected source 

that did not meet the process wastewater emission limits in 

Tables 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(ii) If you must comply with §63.11965, then you must 

include any other applicable information that is required by the 

reporting requirements specified in §63.146.

(9) For closed vent systems subject to the requirements of 

§63.11930, you must include the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section, as 

applicable.

(i) As applicable, records as specified in 

§63.11930(g)(1)(i) for all times when flow was detected in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 443 of 511

bypass line, the vent stream was diverted from the control 

device, or the flow indicator was not operating.

(ii) As applicable, records as specified in 

§63.11930(g)(1)(ii) for all occurrences of all periods when a 

bypass of the system was indicated (the seal mechanism is 

broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key 

for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out, and records 

of any car-seal that has been broken).

(iii) Records of all times when monitoring of the system 

was not performed as specified in §63.11930(d) and (e), or 

repairs were not performed as specified in §63.11930(f), or 

records were not kept as specified in §63.11930(g)(2).

(iv) Records of each time an alarm on a closed vent system 

operating in vacuum service is triggered as specified in 

§63.11930(h) including the cause for the alarm and the 

corrective action taken.

(10) Closed vent system in vacuum service, bypass 

deviation, or pressure vessel closure device deviation report. 

If any pressure vessel closure device or closed vent system has 

discharged to the atmosphere as specified in §§63.11910(c)(4), 

63.11930(c) or 63.11930(h), you must submit to the Administrator 

within 10 days of the discharge the following information:

(i) The source, nature and cause of the discharge.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 444 of 511

(ii) The date, time and duration of the discharge.

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and 

total HAP emitted during the discharge and the method used for 

determining this quantity.

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge.

(v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges

(11) Affirmative defense report. If you seek to assert an 

affirmative defense, as provided in §63.11895, then you must

submit a written report as specified in §63.11895(b) to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

you have met the requirements set forth in §63.11895(a).

(12) Overlap with Title V reports. Information required by 

this subpart, which is submitted with a Title V periodic report, 

does not need to be included in a subsequent compliance report 

required by this subpart or subpart referenced by this subpart. 

The Title V report must be referenced in the compliance report 

required by this subpart.

(c) Other notifications and reports

(1) Notification of inspection. To provide the 

Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present, you 

must notify the Administrator at least 30 days before an 

. You must submit the 

other notification and reports, as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (9) of this section, as applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 445 of 511

inspection required by §63.11910(a)(3). If an inspection is 

unplanned and you could not have known about the inspection 30 

days in advance, then you must notify the Administrator at least 

7 days before the inspection. Notification must be made by 

telephone immediately followed by written documentation 

demonstrating why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, 

the notification including the written documentation may be made 

in writing and sent so that it is received by the Administrator 

at least 7 days before the inspection. If a delegated state or 

local agency is notified, you are not required to notify the 

Administrator. A delegated state or local agency may waive the 

requirement for notification of inspections.

(2) Batch precompliance report. You must submit a batch 

precompliance report at least 6 months prior to the compliance 

date of this subpart that includes a description of the test 

conditions, data, calculations and other information used to 

establish operating limits according to §63.11935(d) for all 

batch operations. If you use an engineering assessment as 

specified in §63.11950(i), then you must also include data or 

other information supporting a finding that the emissions 

estimation equations in §63.11950(a) through (h) are 

inappropriate. If the EPA disapproves the report, then you must 

still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 446 of 511

practice standards of this subpart by your compliance date. To 

change any of the information submitted in the report, you must 

notify the EPA 60 days before you implement the planned change.

(3) Other control device reporting provisions. If you are 

using a control device other than those listed in this subpart, 

then you must submit the information as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) A description of the proposed control device.

(ii) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to 

ensure the control device is operated in conformance with its 

design and achieves the performance level as specified in this 

subpart and an explanation of the criteria used to select the 

parameter(s).

(iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, 

and reporting if monitoring and recording is not continuous, or 

if the compliance report information, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(i)(A) of this section, will not contain 3-hour block 

average values when the monitored parameter value does not meet 

the established operating limit. The rationale for the proposed 

monitoring, recording, and reporting system must be included.

(4) Request for approval to use alternative monitoring 

methods. Prior to your initial notification of compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 447 of 511

status, you may submit requests for approval to use alternatives 

to the continuous operating parameter monitoring specified in 

this rule, as provided for in §63.11940(h), following the same 

procedure as specified in §63.8. The information specified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section must be included.

(i) A description of the proposed alternative system.

(ii) Information justifying your request for an alternative 

method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality, of the affected source using the required 

method.

(5) Request for approval to monitor alternative parameters. 

Prior to your initial notification of compliance status, you may 

submit requests for approval to monitor a different parameter 

than those established in §63.11935(d), following the same 

procedure as specified for alternative monitoring methods in 

§63.8. The information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section must be included in the request.

(i) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored to 

ensure the control technology or pollution prevention measure is 

operated in conformance with its design and achieves the 

specified emission limit and an explanation of the criteria used 

to select the parameter(s).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 448 of 511

(ii) A description of the methods and procedures that will 

be used to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper 

operation of the control device, the schedule for this 

demonstration, and a statement that you will establish an 

operating limit for the monitored parameter(s) as part of the 

notification of compliance status if required under this 

subpart, unless this information has already been submitted.

(iii) The frequency and content of monitoring, recording, 

and reporting, if monitoring and recording is not continuous. 

The rationale for the proposed monitoring, recording, and 

reporting system must be included.

(6) [Reserved].

(7) Pressure relief device deviation report. If any 

pressure relief device in HAP service has discharged to the 

atmosphere as specified in §63.11915(c), then you must submit to 

the Administrator within 10 days of the discharge the following 

information:

(i) The source, nature, and cause of the discharge.

(ii) The date, time, and duration of the discharge.

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of vinyl chloride and 

total HAP emitted during the discharge and the method used for 

determining this quantity.

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this discharge.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 449 of 511

(v) The measures adopted to prevent future such discharges.

(8) Commencing and ceasing operation of continuous 

emissions monitoring systems. Before starting or stopping the 

use of CEMS you must notify the Administrator as specified in 

§63.11935(b)(7).

(9) Data Submittal.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (see §63.2) required by this subpart, you must 

submit the results of performance tests electronically to the 

EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the 

EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted in the file format 

generated through use of the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html). Only 

data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are 

subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete 

ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact 

disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, 

but not limited to, flash drives) to the EPA. The electronic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 450 of 511

media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. 

EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD 

C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the 

delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business information, to the 

delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated 

authority.

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 

performance evaluation test (see §63.2), you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data electronically into the EPA's 

CDX by using the ERT, as mentioned in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of 

this section. Only data collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted 

electronically to the EPA's CDX.

(iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated 

authority may request a report in any form suitable for the 

specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 451 of 511

right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs 

(c)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

§63.11990 What records must I keep?

You must keep records as specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (j) of this section, as applicable.

(a) Copies of reports

(b) 

. You must keep a copy of each 

notification and report that you submit to comply with this 

subpart, including all documentation supporting any notification 

or report. You must also keep copies of the current versions of 

the site-specific performance evaluation test plan, sitespecific monitoring plan, and the equipment leak detection and 

repair plan.

Storage vessels

(1) You must keep a record of the dimensions of the storage 

vessel, an analysis of the capacity of the storage vessel and an 

identification of the liquid stored.

. For storage vessels, you must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section.

(2) Inspection records for fixed roofs complying with 

§63.11910 including the information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Record the date of each inspection required by 

§63.11910(a)(3).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 452 of 511

(ii) For each defect detected during an inspection required 

by §63.11910(a)(3), record the location of the defect, a 

description of the defect, the date of detection and corrective 

action taken to repair the defect. In the event that repair of 

the defect is delayed in accordance with §63.11910(a)(4)(ii), 

also record the reason for the delay and the date that 

completion of repair of the defect is expected.

(3) [Reserved].

(4) For pressure vessels, you must keep the records 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section for each pressure 

vessel.

(5) For internal and external floating roof storage 

vessels, you must maintain the records required in §63.1065 of 

subpart WW of this part.

(c) Equipment leaks

(d) 

. For equipment leaks, you must maintain 

the records specified in §63.1038 of subpart UU of this part for 

equipment leaks and a record of the information specified in 

§63.11930(g)(4) for monitoring instrument calibrations conducted 

according to §63.11930(e)(2).

Heat exchange systems. For a heat exchange system 

subject to this subpart, you must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 453 of 511

(1) Identification of all heat exchangers at the facility 

and the measured or estimated average annual HAP concentration 

of process fluid or intervening cooling fluid processed in each 

heat exchanger.

(2) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are in 

HAP service. For each heat exchange system that is subject to 

this subpart, you must include identification of all heat 

exchangers within each heat exchange system, identification of 

the individual heat exchangers in HAP service within each heat 

exchange system, and for closed-loop recirculation systems, the

cooling tower included in each heat exchange system.

(3) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are 

exempt from the monitoring requirements according to the 

provisions in §63.11920(b) and the provision under which the 

heat exchange system is exempt.

(4) Results of the following monitoring data for each 

monitoring event:

(i) Date/time of event.

(ii) Heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return 

line flow at the sampling location, gallons/minute.

(iii) Monitoring method employed.

(iv) The measured cooling water concentration for each of 

target analyte (parts per billion by weight).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 454 of 511

(v) Calibration and recovery information identified in the 

test method used.

(5) The date when a leak was identified and the date when 

the heat exchanger was repaired or taken out of service.

(6) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the 

schedule for completing the repair, and the estimate of 

potential emissions for the delay of repair.

(e) Process vent monitoring

(1) Continuous records. Where this subpart requires a 

continuous record using CEMS or CPMS, you must maintain, at a 

minimum, the records specified in §63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A).

. You must include the records

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, as 

applicable, for process vent monitoring.

(2) Excluded data. In any average computed to determine 

compliance, you must exclude monitoring data recorded during 

periods specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section.

(i) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or 

portion thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies.

(ii) Periods of no flow to a control device.

(iii) Monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or required monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 455 of 511

system quality assurance or control activities, as specified in 

§63.11890(c)(2).

(3) Records of calculated emission and operating parameter 

values. You must retain for 5 years, a record of CEMS and CPMS 

data as specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, unless an alternative recordkeeping system has been 

requested and approved.

(i) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this 

section, retain for 5 years, the records of the average values 

for each continuously monitored operating parameter and 

pollutant specified in §§63.11925(e)(3)(ii) and 

63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(B) for CEMS and CPMS.

(ii) In lieu of calculating and recording the average value 

specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) of this section, if all 1-hour 

averages specified in §63.11935(e) demonstrate compliance with 

your parameter operating limit or the applicable pollutant 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the block 

average period, you may record a statement that all recorded 1-

hour averages met the operating limit or emission limit, as 

applicable, and retain for 5 years this statement and all 

recorded CPMS or CEMS data for the block average period.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 456 of 511

(4) Information to be included in records. You must keep 

records of each operating scenario as specified in paragraphs

(e)(4)(i) through (viii) of this section, as applicable.

(i) You must keep a schedule or log of operating scenarios, 

updated each time a different operating scenario is put into 

effect.

(ii) A description of the process and the type of process 

components used.

(iii) An identification of related process vents including 

their associated emissions episodes.

(iv) The applicable control requirements of this subpart 

for process vents.

(v) The control device, including a description of 

operating and testing conditions.

(vi) Combined emissions that are routed to the same control 

device.

(vii) The applicable monitoring requirements of this 

subpart and any operating limit that assures compliance for all 

emissions routed to the control device.

(viii) Calculations and engineering analyses required to 

demonstrate compliance.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 457 of 511

(f) Process vents

(1) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii). You must also collect the applicable control 

device operating parameters required in §63.11940 over the full 

period of the performance test.

. You must include the records specified 

in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable, for 

process vents.

(2) If you use a control device to comply with this subpart 

and you are required to use CPMS, then you must keep up-to-date 

and readily accessible records for your process vents as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, 

as applicable.

(i) If you use a flow indicator, then you must keep records 

of periods of no flow to the control device, including the start 

and stop time and dates of periods of flow and no flow.

(ii) If you use a catalytic oxidizer for which you have 

selected the alternative monitoring specified in 

§63.11940(b)(3), then you must also maintain records of the 

results of the annual catalyst sampling and inspections required 

by §63.11940(b)(3)(i) and (ii) including any subsequent 

corrective actions taken.

(iii) If you use a regenerative adsorber as specified in 

§63.11940(d), then the records specified in paragraphs 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 458 of 511

(f)(2)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, as applicable, must 

be kept.

(A) Records of total regeneration stream mass flow for each 

adsorber-bed regeneration cycle.

(B) Records of the temperature of the adsorber bed after 

each regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any 

cooling cycle.

(C) For non-vacuum and non-steam regeneration systems, 

records of the temperature of the adsorber bed during each 

regeneration except during any temperature regulating (cooling 

or warming to bring bed temperature closer to vent gas 

temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle.

(D) If adsorber regeneration vacuum is monitored pursuant 

to §63.11940(d)(4), then you must keep records of the vacuum 

profile over time and the amount of time the vacuum level is 

below the minimum vacuum target for each adsorber-bed 

regeneration cycle.

(E) Records of the regeneration frequency and duration.

(F) Daily records of the verification inspections, 

including the visual observations and/or any activation of an 

automated alarm or shutdown system with a written entry into a 

log book or other permanent form of record.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 459 of 511

(G) Records of the maximum volatile organic compound or HAP 

outlet concentration observed over the last 5 minutes of the 

adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed. Records must be weekly 

or for every regeneration cycle if the regeneration cycle is 

greater than 1 week.

(H) Records of the date and time the adsorbent had last 

been replaced.

(iv) If you use a non-regenerative adsorber as specified in 

§63.11940(e), then the records specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section, as applicable, must 

be kept.

(A) A record of the average life of the bed, as determined 

by §63.11940(e)(1), including the date the average life was 

determined.

(B) Daily, weekly, or monthly records of the maximum 

volatile organic compound or HAP outlet concentration, as 

specified by §63.11940(e)(2).

(C) Records of bed replacement including the date and time 

the adsorbent had last been replaced, and the date and time in 

which breakthrough is detected.

(g) Closed vent systems. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section, and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 460 of 511

you must record any additional information as specified in 

§63.11930, as applicable.

(1) Each alarm triggered because flow was detected in a 

bypass as specified in §63.11930(g)(1)(i).

(2) Inspections of seals or closure mechanisms as specified 

in §63.11930(g)(1)(ii).

(3) Copies of compliance reports for closed vent system 

leak inspections as specified in §63.11985(b)(9) and 

§63.11930(g)(2) and (3).

(4) Instrument calibration records as specified in 

§63.11930(g)(4).

(5) Unsafe-to-inspect equipment as specified in 

§63.11930(g)(5).

(6) Pressure alarms as specified by §63.11930(h)(2) and 

(3).

(h) Resin stripper

(1) All resin sampling data, including daily measurements 

of the concentration of vinyl chloride and monthly measurements 

of the total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP compounds in the 

stripped resin for each type and grade of resin produced. Each 

sample must be identified by the resin type and resin grade, the 

s. For resin strippers, you must maintain 

the records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this 

section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 461 of 511

date and time the sample was taken, identification of the resin 

stripper from which the sample was taken, and the corresponding 

quantity (pounds) of resin processed by the stripper for the 

batch or over the time period represented by the sample.

(2) The total quantity (pounds) of each resin grade 

produced per day and the total quantity of resin processed by 

each resin stripper, identified by resin type and resin grade, 

per day.

(i) Process wastewater

(1) A description of the process wastewater generation 

activities and treatment process.

. For treatment processes, you must 

maintain the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) 

of this section.

(2) Records of the treatment determinations specified in 

§63.11965(b) for each wastewater stream and the type of 

treatment applied if required in §63.11965(d) and (e).

(3) Records of the initial performance test specified in 

§63.11970(a) and (b).

(4) All testing data, including monthly measurements of the 

concentrations of vinyl chloride and the concentration of total 

non-vinyl chloride organic HAP in each process wastewater stream 

required to be measured, as specified in §63.11975.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 462 of 511

(5) You must keep any other applicable records that are 

required by the recordkeeping requirements specified in §63.147 

of subpart G of this part.

(j) Other emission sources

(1) All engineering calculations, testing, sampling, and 

monitoring results and data specified in §63.11955.

. You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.

(2) Each occurrence that you do not comply with the 

requirements in §63.11955.

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

(a) You must keep records for 5 years in a form suitable 

and readily available for expeditious review, as specified in 

§63.10(b)(1).

(b) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years, 

as specified in §63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records off site 

for the remaining 3 years. Records may be maintained in hard 

copy or computer-readable format including, but not limited to, 

on paper, microfilm, hard disk drive, floppy disk, compact disk, 

magnetic tape or microfiche.

§63.12000 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the 

Administrator, as defined in §63.2, or a delegated authority 

such as your state, local or tribal agency. If the Administrator 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 463 of 511

has delegated authority to your state, local or tribal agency, 

then that agency (as well as the Administrator) has the 

authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should 

contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 

delegated to your state, local or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a state, local or tribal agency, the 

authorities listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local or tribal agency, however, the 

EPA retains oversight of this subpart and can take enforcement 

actions, as appropriate.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits, 

operating limits, and work practice standards specified in this 

subpart.

(2) Approval of a major change to test methods, as defined 

in §63.90, approval of any proposed analysis methods, and 

approval of any proposed test methods.

(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring, as defined in 

§63.90.

(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and 

reporting, as defined in §63.90.

Definitions
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 464 of 511

§63.12005 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, and in this section, as follows:

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding.

Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode 

that is associated with a single unit operation. A unit 

operation may have more than one batch emission episode. For 

example, a displacement of vapor resulting from the charging of 

a vessel with HAP will result in a discrete emission episode 

that will last through the duration of the charge and will have 

an average flowrate equal to the rate of the charge. If the 

vessel is then heated, there will also be another discrete 

emission episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded vapor. 

Both emission episodes may occur in the same vessel or unit 

operation. There are possibly other emission episodes that may 

occur from the vessel or other process components, depending on 

process operations.

Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving 

intermittent or discontinuous feed into process components, and, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 465 of 511

in general, involves the emptying of the process components 

after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new 

operation. Addition of raw material and withdrawal of product do 

not occur simultaneously in a batch operation.

Batch process vent means a vent from a batch operation from 

a PVCPU through which a HAP-containing gas stream has the 

potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is 

required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and 

control device. Emissions for all emission episodes associated 

with the unit operation(s) are part of the batch process vent. 

Batch process vents also include vents with intermittent flow 

from continuous operations. Examples of batch process vents 

include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for 

product recovery, polymerization reactors, and process tanks. 

Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from 

continuous distillation before the stream is sent for storage or 

for further downstream processing. A rundown tank is an example 

of a bottoms receiver.

Bulk process means a process for producing polyvinyl 

chloride resin that is characterized by a two-step anhydrous 

polymerization process: the formation of small resin particles 

in a pre-polymerization reactor using small amounts of vinyl 

chloride monomer, an initiator, and agitation; and the growth of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 466 of 511

the resin particles in a post-polymerization reactor using 

additional vinyl chloride monomer. Resins produced using the 

bulk process are referred to as bulk resins.

Bypass means to divert a process vent or closed vent system 

stream to the atmosphere such that it does not first pass 

through an emission control device.

Calendar year means the period between January 1 and 

December 31, inclusive for a given year.

Capacity means the nominal figure or rating given by the 

manufacturer of the storage vessel, condenser, or other process 

component.

Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is 

used to change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to 

closed) in such a way that the position of the valve cannot be 

changed without breaking the seal.

Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the 

atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, 

and, if necessary, flow inducing devices that collect or 

transport gas or vapor from an emission point to a control 

device.

Combustion device means an individual unit used for the 

combustion of organic emissions, such as a flare, incinerator, 

process heater, or boiler.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 467 of 511

Conservation vent means an automatically operated (e.g., 

weight-loaded or spring-loaded) safety device used to prevent 

the operating pressure of a storage vessel from exceeding the 

maximum allowable working pressure of the process component. 

Conservation vents must be designed to open only when the 

operating pressure of the storage vessel exceeds the maximum 

allowable working pressure of the process component. 

Conservation vents open and close to permit only the intake or 

outlet relief necessary to keep the storage vessel within 

permissible working pressures, and reseal automatically.

Container means a portable unit in which a material can be 

stored, transported, treated, disposed of or otherwise handled. 

Examples of containers include, but are not limited to, drums, 

pails, and portable cargo containers known as "portable tanks" 

or "totes." Container does not include transport vehicles or 

barges.

Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) means the 

total equipment that may be required to meet the data 

acquisition and availability requirements of this subpart, used 

to sample, condition (if applicable), analyze, and provide a 

record of emissions.

Continuous operation means any operation that is not a 

batch operation.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 468 of 511

Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the 

total equipment that may be required to meet the data 

acquisition and availability requirements of this part, used to 

sample, condition (if applicable), analyze, and provide a record 

of process or control system parameters.

Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy 

or computer readable form, of data values measured at least once 

every 15 minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in 

§63.11990(e)(1).

Continuous process vent

(1) The gas stream originates as a continuous flow from any 

continuous PVCPU operation during operation of the PVCPU.

means a vent from a continuous 

PVCPU operation through which a HAP-containing gas stream has 

the potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is 

required by this subpart to routed to a closed vent system and 

control device and has the following characteristics: 

(2) The discharge into the closed vent system and control 

device meets at least one of the following conditions:

(i) Is directly from any continuous operation.

(ii) Is from any continuous operation after passing solely 

(i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a 

process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the 

PVCPU.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 469 of 511

(iii) Is from a device recovering only mechanical energy 

from a gas stream that comes either directly from any continuous 

operation, or from any continuous operation after passing solely 

(i.e., without passing through any other unit operation for a 

process purpose) through one or more recovery devices within the 

PVCPU.

Continuous PVCPU operation means any operation that is not 

a batch operation or an operation that generates a miscellaneous 

process vent. 

Control device means, with the exceptions noted in this 

definition, a combustion device, recovery device, recapture 

device or any combination of these devices used to comply with 

this subpart. Process condensers are not control devices.

Control system means the combination of the closed vent 

system and the control devices used to collect and control 

vapors or gases from a regulated emission source.

Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove 

the heat absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by 

transferring the heat to the atmosphere using natural or 

mechanical draft.

Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines 

at the inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the 

atmosphere.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 470 of 511

Corrective action plan means a description of all 

reasonable interim and long-term measures, if any, that are 

available, and an explanation of why the selected corrective 

action is the best alternative, including, but not limited to, 

any consideration of cost-effectiveness.

Day means a calendar day, unless otherwise specified in 

this subpart.

Dioxin/furans means total tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans.

Dispersion process means a process for producing polyvinyl 

chloride resin that is characterized by the formation of the 

polymers in soap micelles that contain small amounts of vinyl 

chloride monomer. Emulsifiers are used to disperse vinyl 

chloride monomer in the water phase. Initiators used in the 

dispersion process are soluble in water. Resins produced using 

the dispersion process are referred to as latex or dispersion 

resins.

Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of 

stored liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that 

contain liquid only as a result of the liquid clinging to the 

walls or bottoms, or resting in pools due to bottom 

irregularities, are considered completely empty.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 471 of 511

Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or 

line, valve, connector and instrumentation system in HAP 

service; and any control devices or systems used to comply with 

this subpart.

Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a 

storage vessel, but not necessarily to capacity.

First attempt at repair, for the purposes of this subpart, 

means to take action for the purpose of stopping or reducing 

leakage of organic material to the atmosphere, followed by 

monitoring as specified in §63.11930(f) to verify whether the 

leak is repaired, unless the owner or operator determines by 

other means that the leak is not repaired.

Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is 

mounted (i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that 

does not move with fluctuations in stored liquid level.

Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas 

flow is, or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to 

be, present in a line.

Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is 

floating in a vessel filled with water that is used to store 

gases from the PVC production process prior to being recovered 

or sent to a process vent control device. The bell rises and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 472 of 511

falls as low-pressure gases enter and leave the space beneath 

the bell and the water provides a seal between the enclosed gas 

within the floating bell and the ambient air.

Grade means the subdivision of PVC resin that describes it 

as a unique resin, i.e., the most exact description of a type of 

resin with no further subdivision. Examples include low 

molecular weight suspension resins and general purpose 

suspension resins.

Hard-piping means pipes or tubing that are manufactured and 

properly installed using good engineering judgment and an 

appropriate standard method published by a consensus-based 

standards organization if such a method exists or you may use an 

industry standard practice. Consensus-based standards 

organizations include, but are not limited to, American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI, 1819 L Street, NW., 6th floor, 

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, http://www.ansi.org).

Heat exchange system means a device or collection of 

devices used to transfer heat from process fluids to water 

without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the 

water (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger) and to transport and/or 

cool the water in a closed-loop recirculation system (cooling 

tower system) or a once-through system (e.g., river or pond 

water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the heat exchange 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 473 of 511

system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers that are 

serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from

the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat 

exchange system consists of one or more heat exchangers 

servicing an individual process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional direct contact with 

process fluids results in the formation of a wastewater.

Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from 

the exit of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water 

leaves the heat exchangers) to either the entrance of the 

cooling tower return line or prior to exposure to the atmosphere 

or mixing with non-cooling water streams, in, as an example, a 

once-through cooling system, whichever occurs first.

In HAP service means that a process component either 

contains or contacts a liquid that is at least 5-percent HAP by 

weight or a gas that is at least 5 percent by volume HAP as 

determined according to the provisions of §63.180(d). For the 

purposes of this definition, the term “organic HAP” as used in 

§63.180(d) means HAP. The provisions of §63.180(d) also specify 

how to determine that a process component is not in HAP service.

In vacuum service means that the process component is 

operating at an internal pressure that is at least 5 kilopascals 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 474 of 511

(kPa) (0.7 pounds per square inch absolute) below ambient 

pressure.

Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device with an 

enclosed fire box that is used for destroying organic compounds. 

Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste gas to combustion 

temperatures. Any energy recovery section present is not 

physically formed into one manufactured or assembled unit with 

the combustion section; rather, the energy recovery section is a 

separate section following the combustion section and the two 

are joined by ducts or connections carrying flue gas. This 

energy recovery section limitation does not apply to an energy 

recovery section used solely to preheat the incoming vent stream 

or combustion air.

Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the 

draining of process fluid from components in the PVCPU into an 

individual drain system prior to or during maintenance 

activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during 

planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not 

associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can 

generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat 

exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU process components 

such as polymerization reactors, vessels and heat exchangers, 

draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 475 of 511

into an individual drain system, draining of portions of the 

PVCPU for repair and water used to wash out process components 

or equipment after the process components or equipment has 

already been opened to the atmosphere and has met the 

requirements of §63.11955.

Maximum representative operating conditions means process 

operating conditions that result in the most challenging 

condition for the control device. The most challenging condition 

for the control device may include, but is not limited to, the 

highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate to the control device,

the highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of constituents that 

approach the limits of solubility for scrubbing media, the 

highest or lowest HAP mass loading rate of constituents that 

approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.

Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial 

pressure exerted by the total HAP in the stored or transferred 

liquid at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month 

average of the liquid storage or transfer temperature for 

liquids stored or transferred above or below the ambient 

temperature or at the local maximum monthly average temperature 

as reported by the National Weather Service for liquids stored 

or transferred at the ambient temperature, as determined by any 

one of the following methods or references:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 476 of 511

(1) In accordance with methods described in American 

Petroleum Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From 

External Floating-Roof Tanks (incorporated by reference, see 

§63.14).

(2) As obtained from standard reference texts.

(3) As determined by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials Method D2879-10 (incorporated by reference, see 

§63.14).

(4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.

Miscellaneous vent means gaseous emissions from samples, 

loading and unloading lines, slip gauges, process wastewater 

treatment systems and pressure relief devices that are routed 

through a closed vent system to a control device and that are 

not equipment leaks.

Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated 

outside of the range of operating conditions that are documented 

in an existing operating scenario, but is still a reasonably 

anticipated event. For example, a nonstandard batch occurs when 

additional processing or processing at different operating 

conditions must be conducted to produce a product that is 

normally produced under the conditions described by the standard 

batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary as a result of a 

malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 477 of 511

Operating block means a period of time that is equal to the 

time from the beginning to end of batch process operations 

within a process.

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight 

and the following midnight during which PVC is produced at any 

time in the PVCPU. It is not necessary for PVC to be produced 

for the entire 24-hour period.

Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and 

recordkeeping, any specific operation of a regulated process as 

described by reports specified in §63.11985(b)(4)(ii) and 

records specified in §63.11990(e)(4).

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary or any combination 

thereof.

Polymerization reactor means any vessel in which vinyl 

chloride is partially or totally polymerized into polyvinyl 

chloride. For bulk processes, the polymerization reactor 

includes pre-polymerization reactors and post-polymerization 

reactors.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 478 of 511

Polyvinyl chloride means either polyvinyl chloride 

homopolymer or polyvinyl chloride copolymer.

Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer means a synthetic 

thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the polymerization of 

vinyl chloride and has the general chemical structure (-H2CCHCl-

)n. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is typically a white powder 

or colorless granule. Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer is produced 

by different processes, including (but not limited to), 

suspension, dispersion/emulsion, blending and bulk processes.

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production process unit 

or PVCPU means a collection of process components assembled and 

connected by hard-piping or duct work, used to process raw 

materials and to manufacture polyvinyl chloride and/or polyvinyl 

chloride copolymers. A PVCPU includes, but is not limited to, 

polymerization reactors; resin stripping operations; resin blend 

tanks; resin centrifuges; resin dryers; resin product 

separators; recovery devices; reactant and raw material charge 

vessels and tanks, holding tanks, mixing and weighing tanks;

finished resin product storage tanks or storage silos; finished 

resin product loading operations; connected ducts and piping; 

equipment including pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 

relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves 

or lines, valves and connectors and instrumentation systems. A 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 479 of 511

PVCPU does not include chemical manufacturing process units, as 

defined in §63.101, that produce vinyl chloride monomer or other 

raw materials used in the PVC polymerization process.

Polyvinyl chloride copolymer means a synthetic 

thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the simultaneous 

polymerization of vinyl chloride and another monomer such as 

vinyl acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by 

different processes, including, but not limited to, suspension, 

dispersion/emulsion, suspension blending, and solution 

processes.

Pressure relief device means a safety device used to 

prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable 

working pressure of the process component. A common pressure 

relief device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve.

Pressure vessel means a vessel that is used to store 

liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere 

as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the 

pressure vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its 

design capacity.

Process change means an addition to or change in a PVCPU 

and/or its associated process components that creates one or 

more emission points or changes the characteristics of an 

emission point such that a new or different emission limit, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 480 of 511

operating parameter limit, or work practice requirement applies 

to the added or changed emission points. Examples of process 

changes include, but are not limited to, changes in production 

capacity, production rate, or catalyst type, or whenever there 

is replacement, removal, or addition of recovery device 

components. For purposes of this definition, process changes do 

not include process upsets, changes that do not alter the 

process component configuration and operating conditions, and 

unintentional, temporary process changes. A process change does 

not include moving within a range of conditions identified in 

the standard batch, and a nonstandard batch does not constitute 

a process change.

Process component means any unit operation or group of 

units operations or any part of a process or group of parts of a 

process that are assembled to perform a specific function (e.g., 

polymerization reactor, dryers, etc.). Process components 

include equipment, as defined in this section.

Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose 

is to recover material as an integral part of a batch process. 

All condensers recovering condensate from a batch process at or 

above the boiling point or all condensers in line prior to a 

vacuum source are considered process condensers. Typically, a 

primary condenser or condensers in series are considered to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 481 of 511

integral to the batch regulated process if they are capable of 

and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for

fuel value (i.e.

(1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a 

downstream condenser.

, net positive heating value), use, reuse or for 

sale for fuel value, use or reuse. This definition does not 

apply to a condenser that is used to remove materials that would 

hinder performance of a downstream recovery device as follows:

(2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the 

adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber.

(3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or 

other organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during 

regeneration of a downstream adsorber.

Process tank means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure 

vessel) that is used within an affected source to both: (1) 

Collect material discharged from a feedstock storage vessel, 

process tank or other PVCPU process component and (2) discharge 

the material to another process tank, process component, 

byproduct storage vessel or product storage vessel.

Process unit means the process components assembled and 

connected by pipes or ducts to process raw and/or intermediate 

materials and to manufacture an intended product. For the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 482 of 511

purpose of this subpart, process unit includes, but is not 

limited to, polyvinyl chloride production process.

Process vent means a vent stream that is the result of the 

manifolding of each and all batch process vent, continuous 

process vent, or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected 

facility into a closed vent system and into a common header that

is routed to a control device. The process vent standards apply 

at the outlet of the control device. A process vent is either a 

PVC-only process vent or a PVC-combined process vent. 

Process wastewater means wastewater that comes into direct 

contact with HAP or results from the production or use of any 

raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product 

or waste product containing HAP, but that has not been 

discharged untreated as wastewater. Examples are product tank 

drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during a chemical 

reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities 

from organic products or reactants; water used to cool or quench 

organic vapor streams through direct contact; water discarded 

from a control device; and condensed steam from jet ejector 

systems pulling vacuum on vessels containing organics. Gasholder 

seal water is not process wastewater until it is removed from 

the gasholder.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 483 of 511

Process wastewater treatment system means a specific 

technique or collection of techniques that remove or destroy the 

organics in a process wastewater stream to comply with 

§§63.11965 and 63.11970. 

Product means a polymer produced using the same monomers 

and varying in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators, etc.); 

catalysts; or in the relative proportions of monomers, that is 

manufactured by a process unit. With respect to polymers, more 

than one recipe may be used to produce the same product, and 

there can be more than one grade of a product. Product also 

means a chemical that is not a polymer, which is manufactured by

a process unit. By-products, isolated intermediates, impurities, 

wastes and trace contaminants are not considered products.

PVC-combined process vent means a process vent that 

originates from a PVCPU and is combined with one or more process 

vents originating from another source category prior to being 

controlled or emitted to the atmosphere.

PVC-only process vent means a process vent that originates 

from a PVCPU and is not combined with a process vent originating 

from another source category prior to being controlled or 

emitted to the atmosphere.

Recipe means a specific composition from among the range of 

possible compositions that may occur within a product, as 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 484 of 511

defined in this section. A recipe is determined by the 

proportions of monomers and, if present, other reactants and 

additives that are used to make the recipe.

Recovery device means an individual process component 

capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering 

chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), 

use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. Examples of 

process components that may be recovery devices include 

absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, oil-water separators or 

organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such as 

decanters, strippers (e.g., wastewater steam and vacuum 

strippers) or thin-film evaporation units. For purposes of this 

subpart, recovery devices are control devices.

Repaired, for the purposes of this subpart, means equipment 

that is adjusted or otherwise altered to eliminate a leak as 

defined in the applicable sections of this subpart; and unless 

otherwise specified in applicable provisions of this subpart, is 

inspected as specified in §63.11930(f) to verify that emissions 

from the equipment are below the applicable leak definition.

Resin stripper means a unit that removes organic compounds 

from a raw polyvinyl chloride and copolymer product. In the 

production of a polymer, stripping is a discrete step that 

occurs after the polymerization reaction and before drying or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 485 of 511

other finishing operations. Examples of types of stripping 

include steam stripping, vacuum stripping or other methods of 

devolatilization. For the purposes of this subpart, 

devolatilization that occurs in dryers or other finishing 

operations is not resin stripping. Resin stripping may occur in 

a polymerization reactor or in a batch or continuous stripper 

separate from the polymerization reactor where resin stripping 

occurs.

Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a 

process of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any 

other significant contributing cause(s), of a discharge of gases 

in excess of specified thresholds.

Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or 

the change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, 

pressure, flow rate, pH or liquid level.

Slip gauge means a gauge that has a probe that moves 

through the gas/liquid interface in a storage vessel and 

indicates the level of product in the vessel by the physical 

state of the material the gauge discharges.

Solution process means a process for producing polyvinyl 

chloride copolymer resin that is characterized by the anhydrous 

formation of the polymer through precipitation. Polymerization 

occurs in an organic solvent in the presence of an initiator 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 486 of 511

where vinyl chloride monomer and co-monomers are soluble in the 

solvent, but the polymer is not. The PVC copolymer is a granule 

suspended in the solvent, which then precipitates out of 

solution. Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not used in the 

solution process. PVC copolymer resins produced using the 

solution process are referred to as solution resins.

Specific gravity monitoring device means a unit of 

equipment used to monitor specific gravity and having a minimum 

accuracy of ±0.02 specific gravity units.

Standard procedure means a formal written procedure 

officially adopted by the plant owner or operator and available 

on a routine basis to those persons responsible for carrying out 

the procedure.

Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel (e.g.

(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as 

trucks, railcars, barges, or ships;

, pressure 

vessel) that is part of an affected source and is used to store 

a gaseous, liquid or solid feedstock, byproduct or product that 

contains organic HAP. Storage vessel does not include:

(2) Process tanks;

(3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 10,040 gallons;

(4) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic 

HAP only as impurities;
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 487 of 511

(5) Bottoms receiver tanks;

(6) Surge control vessels; and

(7) Wastewater storage tanks. Wastewater storage tanks are 

covered under the wastewater provisions.

Stripped resin means the material exiting the resin 

stripper that contains polymerized vinyl chloride.

Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to 

a vent stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. 

Air that is part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of 

the unit operation is not considered supplemental combustion 

air. Air required to operate combustion device burner(s) is not 

considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to ensure 

the proper operation of catalytic oxidizers, to include the 

intermittent addition of air upstream of the catalyst bed to 

maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the catalyst bed 

or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is not 

considered to be supplemental combustion air.

Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums and 

intermediate vessels used as a part of any continuous operation. 

Surge control vessels are used within an affected source when 

in-process storage, mixing, or management of flow rates or 

volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous 

operations. Surge control vessels also include gasholders.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 488 of 511

Suspension process means a process for producing polyvinyl 

chloride resin that is characterized by the formation of the 

polymers in droplets of liquid vinyl chloride monomer or other 

co-monomers suspended in water. The droplets are formed by 

agitation and the use of protective colloids or suspending 

agents. Initiators used in the suspension process are soluble in 

vinyl chloride monomer. Polyvinyl chloride resins produced using 

the suspension process are referred to as suspension resins.

Suspension blending process means a process for producing 

polyvinyl chloride resin that is similar to the suspension 

polymerization process, but employs a rate of agitation that is 

significantly higher than the highest range for non-blending 

suspension resins. The suspension blending process uses a recipe 

that creates extremely small resin particles, generally equal to 

or less than 100 microns in size, with a glassy surface and very 

little porosity. The suspension blending process concentrates 

the resins using a centrifuge that is specifically designed to 

handle these small particles. Polyvinyl chloride resins produced 

using the suspension blending process are referred to as 

suspension blending resins and are typically blended with 

dispersion resins.

Table 10 HAP means a HAP compound listed in table 10 of 

this subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 489 of 511

Total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, the sum of the measured concentrations 

of each HAP, as calculated according to the procedures specified 

in §§63.11960(f) and 63.11980(b).

Type of resin means the broad classification of PVC 

homopolymer and copolymer resin referring to the basic 

manufacturing process for producing that resin, including, but 

not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, suspension 

blending, bulk, and solution processes.

Unloading operations

Wastewater means process wastewater and maintenance 

wastewater. The following are not considered wastewater for the 

purposes of this subpart:

means the transfer of organic liquids 

from a transport vehicle, container or storage vessel to process 

components within the affected source.

(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;

(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including 

testing of such systems;

(3) Spills;

(4) Water from safety showers;

(5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary 

for the method of analysis that is used;

(6) Equipment leaks;
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 490 of 511

(7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting 

hoses after cleaning lines; and

(8) Noncontact cooling water.

Wastewater stream means a stream that contains only 

wastewater as defined in this section.

Work practice standard

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and 

Standards for Existing Affected Sources

means any design, equipment, work 

practice or operational standard, or combination thereof, that 

is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

PVC-only 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin 

types.

6.0 parts per 

million by volume 

(ppmv).

Total 

hydrocarbons.

All resin 

types.

9.7 ppmv measured as 

propane.

Total organic 

HAPb

All resin 

. types.

56 ppmv.

Hydrogen chloride. All resin 

types.

78 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin 

types.

0.038 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter (ng/dscm).

PVCcombined 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin 

types.

1.1 ppmv.

Total 

hydrocarbons.

All resin 

types.

4.2 ppmv measured as 

propane.

Total organic 

HAPb

All resin 

. types.

9.8 ppmv.

Hydrogen chloride. All resin 

types.

380 ppmv. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 491 of 511

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin 

types.

0.051 ng/dscm. 

Stripped 

resin.

Vinyl chloride. Bulk resin. 7.1 parts per 

million by weight 

(ppmw).

Dispersion 

resin.

1300 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

37 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

140 ppmw.

Copolymer 

resin.

790 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

Bulk resin. 170 ppmw.

Dispersion 

resin.

240 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

670 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

500 ppmw.

Copolymer 

resin.

1900 ppmw.

Process 

Wastewater.

Vinyl chloride. All resin 

types.

6.8 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

All resin 

types.

110 ppmw.

a Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. b Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.

Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Affected Sources

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 492 of 511

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

PVC-only 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 0.56 ppmv.

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 7.0 ppmv measured as 

propane.

Total organic HAP

b

All resin types.

.

5.5 ppmv.

Hydrogen chloride All resin types. 0.17 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis)

All resin types. 0.038 ng/dscm.

PVCcombined 

process 

ventsa

Vinyl chloride.

.

All resin types. 0.56 ppmv.

Total hydrocarbons. All resin types. 2.3 ppmv measured as 

propane.

Total organic HAPb. All resin types. 5.5 ppmv.

Hydrogen chloride. All resin types. 1.4 ppmv.

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic equivalency 

basis).

All resin types. 0.034 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter (ng/dscm). 

Stripped 

resin.

Vinyl chloride. Bulk resin. 7.1 parts per 

million by weight 

(ppmw).

Dispersion 

resin.

480 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

7.3 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

140 ppmw.

Copolymer – all 

resin types.

790 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

Bulk resin. 170 ppmw.

Dispersion 

resin.

66 ppmw.

Suspension 

resin.

15 ppmw.

Suspension 

blending resin.

500 ppmw.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 493 of 511

For this 

type of 

emission 

point...

And for this air 

pollutant...

And for an 

affected source 

producing this 

type of PVC 

resin...

You must meet this 

emission limit...

Copolymer resin. 1900 ppmw.

Process 

Wastewate

r.

Vinyl chloride. All resin types. 0.28 ppmw.

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic 

HAP.

All resin types. 0.018 ppmw.

a Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis. b Total organic HAP is alternative compliance limit for THC.

Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Summary of Control 

Requirements for Storage Vessels at New and Existing Sources

If the storage vessel 

capacity (gallons) is...

And the vapor 

pressurea (psia) is...

Then, you must use the 

following type of 

storage vessel: ...

≥ 20,000 but < 40,000 ≥ 4 Internal floating 

roof, external 

floating roof, or 

fixed roof vented to a 

closed vent system and 

control device 

achieving 95 percent 

reductionb

≥ 40,000

.

≥ 0.75 Internal floating 

roof, external 

floating roof, or 

fixed roof vented to a 

closed vent system and 

control device 

achieving 95 percent 

reductionb

Any capacity.

.

> 11.1 Pressure vesselc

All other capacity and vapor pressure 

combinations.

.

Fixed roofd

a Maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at storage temperature.

.

b If using a fixed roof storage vessel vented to a closed vent system and 

control device, you must meet the requirements in §63.11910(a) for fixed roof 

storage vessels. If using an internal floating roof storage vessel or 

external floating roof storage vessels, you must meet the requirements in 

§63.11910(b) for internal floating roof storage vessels or external floating 

roof storage vessels, as applicable.

c Meeting the requirements of §63.11910(c) for pressure vessels. d Meeting the requirements in §63.11910(a) for fixed roof storage vessels.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 494 of 511

Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of the 

General Provisions to Part 63

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.1(a)(1)-

(a)(4), (a)(6), 

(a)(10)-

(a)(12), 

(b)(1), (b)(3), 

(c)(1), (c)(2), 

(c)(5), (e)

Applicability. Yes.

§63.1(a)(5), 

(a)(7)-(a)(9), 

(b)(2), (c)(3), 

(c)(4), (d)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.2 Definitions. Yes. Additional 

definitions 

are found in 

§63.12005. 

§63.3 Units and abbreviations. Yes.

§63.4(a)(1), 

(a)(2), (b), 

(c)

Prohibited activities and 

circumvention.

Yes.

§63.4(a)(3)-

(a)(5)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.5(a), 

(b)(1), (b)(3), 

(b)(4), (b)(6), 

(d)-(f)

Preconstruction review and 

notification requirements.

Yes.

§63.5(b)(2), 

(b)(5), (c)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.6(a), 

(b)(1)-(b)(5), 

(b)(7), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), 

(e)(1)(iii), 

(f)(2), (f)(3), 

(g), (i), (j)

Compliance with standards 

and maintenance 

requirements.

Yes. §63.11875 

specifies 

compliance 

dates.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 495 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.6(b)(6), 

(c)(3), (c)(4), 

(d), (e)(2), 

(e)(3)(ii), 

(h)(2)(ii), 

(h)(3), 

(h)(5)(iv)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i), 

(e)(1)(ii), 

(e)(3), (f)(1)

Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction provisions.

No. See

§63.11890(b) 

for general 

duty 

requirement.

§63.6(h)(1), 

(h)(2)(i), 

(h)(2)(iii), 

(h)(4), 

(h)(5)(i)-

(h)(5)(iii), 

(h)(5)(v), 

(h)(6)-(h)(9)

Compliance with opacity 

and visible emission 

standards.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not specify 

opacity or 

visible 

emission 

standards.

§63.7(a)(1), 

(a)(2), (a)(3), 

(a)(4), (b)-

(d), (e)(2)-

(e)(4), (f), 

(g)(1), (g)(3), 

(h)

Performance testing 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Performance testing. No. See

especially 

§63.11945 

63.11960(d), 

63.11980(a) 

§63.7(g)(2) [Reserved]. No.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 496 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.8(a)(1), 

(a)(2), (a)(4), 

(b), (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(ii), 

(c)(2)-(c)(4), 

(c)(6)-(c)(8)

Monitoring requirements. Yes. Except cross 

reference in 

§63.8(c)(1)(i) 

to §63.6(e)(1) 

is replaced 

with a crossreference to 

§63.11890(b).

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii

)

Requirement to develop SSM 

plan for continuous 

monitoring systems.

No.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous opacity 

monitoring system minimum 

procedures.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not have 

opacity or 

visible 

emission 

standards.

§63.8(d) Written procedures for 

continuous monitoring 

systems.

Yes, except 

for last 

sentence, 

which refers 

to an SSM 

plan. SSM 

plans are not 

required.

§63.8(e) Continuous monitoring 

systems performance 

evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f) Use of an alternative 

monitoring method.

Yes.

§63.8(g) Reduction of monitoring 

data.

Yes. Except that 

the minimum 

data 

collection 

requirements 

are specified 

in 

§63.11935(e).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 497 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.9(a), 

(b)(1), (b)(2), 

(b)(4)(i), 

(b)(4)(v), 

(b)(5), (c)-

(e), (g)(1), 

(g)(3), (h)(1)-

(h)(3), (h)(5), 

(h)(6), (i), 

(j)

Notification requirements. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of opacity 

and visible emission 

observations.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not have 

opacity or 

visible 

emission 

standards.

§63.9(g)(2) Use of continuous opacity 

monitoring system data.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not require 

the use of 

continuous 

opacity 

monitoring 

system.

§63.9(b)(3), 

(b)(4)(ii)-

(iv), (h)(4)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.10(a), 

(b)(1)

Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration of 

startups and shutdowns.

No.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 498 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.10(b)(2)(ii

)

Recordkeeping of 

malfunctions.

No. See 

63.11985(c)(4

) and (8) for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) 

occurrence 

and duration 

and (2) 

actions taken 

during 

malfunction.

See also 

63.11985(c)(8

) for 

deviation 

reporting.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii

i)

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv

), (b)(2)(v)

Actions taken to minimize 

emissions during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi

) 

Recordkeeping for CMS 

malfunctions.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi

i)–(x)

Other CMS requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(xi

)-(xiv)

Other recordkeeping 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(3) Recordkeeping requirement 

for applicability 

determinations.

Yes. 

§63.10(c)(1), 

(c)(5), (c)(6)

Additional recordkeeping 

requirements for sources 

with continuous monitoring 

systems. 

Yes.

§63.10(c)(2)–

(4), (c)(9)

[Reserved]. No.

§63.10(c)(7) Additional recordkeeping 

requirements for CMS –

identifying exceedances 

and excess emissions

during SSM.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 499 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.10(c)(8) Additional recordkeeping 

requirements for CMS –

identifying exceedances 

and excess emissions.

Yes.

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

of malfunctions.

No. See 

63.11985(c)(4

) and (8) for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) 

occurrence 

and duration 

and (2) 

actions taken 

during 

malfunction. 

See also 

63.11985(c)(8

) for 

deviation 

reporting.

63.10(c)(11), 

(c)(12)

Recording corrective 

actions.

No. See 

63.11985(c)(4

) and (8) for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) 

occurrence 

and duration 

and (2) 

actions taken 

during 

malfunction. 

See also 

63.11985(c)(8

) for 

deviation 

reporting.

§63.10(c)(13) –

(14)

Records of the total 

process operating time 

during the reporting 

period and procedures that 

are part of the continuous 

monitoring system quality 

control program.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 500 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.10(c)(15) Use SSM plan. No.

§63.10(d)(1) General reporting 

requirements.

Yes.

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

§63.10(d)(3) Opacity or visible 

emissions observations.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not specify 

opacity or 

visible 

emission 

standards.

§63.10(d)(4) Progress reports. Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM reports. No. See 

63.11985(c)(4

) and (8) for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) 

occurrence 

and duration 

and (2) 

actions taken 

during 

malfunction. 

See also 

63.11985(c)(8

) for 

deviation 

reporting.

§63.10(e)(1) Additional continuous 

monitoring system reports—

general.

Yes.

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

monitoring system 

performance evaluations.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 501 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.10(e)(2)(ii

)

Results of continuous 

opacity monitoring system 

performance evaluations.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not require 

the use of 

continuous 

opacity 

monitoring 

system.

§63.10(e)(3) Excess 

emissions/continuous 

monitoring system 

performance reports.

Yes.

§63.10(e)(4) Continuous opacity 

monitoring system data 

reports.

No. Subpart 

HHHHHHH does 

not require 

the use of 

continuous 

opacity 

monitoring 

system.

§63.10(f) Recordkeeping/reporting 

waiver.

Yes.

63.11(a) Control device and work 

practice requirements –

applicability.

Yes.

§63.11(b) Flares. No. Facilities 

subject to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH do not 

use flares as 

control 

devices, as 

specified in 

§63.11925(b).

§63.11(c)–(e) Alternative work practice 

for monitoring equipment 

for leaks.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 502 of 511

Citation Subject

Applies to 

subpart 

HHHHHHH Comment

§63.12 State authority and 

delegations.

Yes. §63.12000

identifies

types of 

approval 

authority that 

are not 

delegated.

§63.13 Addresses. Yes.

§63.14 Incorporations by 

reference.

Yes. Subpart 

HHHHHHH 

incorporates 

material by 

reference.

§63.15 Availability of 

information and 

confidentiality.

Yes.

§63.16 Performance track 

provisions.

Yes.

Table 5 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Operating Parameters, 

Operating Limits and Data Monitoring, Recording and Compliance 

Frequencies for Process Vents

For these 

control 

devices, you 

must monitor 

these 

operating 

parameters...

Establish 

the 

following 

operating 

limit during 

your initial 

performance 

test...

Monitor, record, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies.

Data 

measurement

Data 

recording

Data averaging

period for 

compliance

Process Vents

Any Control device

Flow to/from 

the control 

device.

N/A. Continuous. N/A. Date and time 

of flow start 

and stop.

Thermal Oxidizers
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 503 of 511

For these 

control 

devices, you 

must monitor 

these 

operating 

parameters...

Establish 

the 

following 

operating 

limit during 

your initial 

performance 

test...

Monitor, record, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies.

Data 

measurement

Data 

recording

Data averaging

period for 

compliance

Temperature 

(in fire box 

or downstream 

ductwork 

prior to heat 

exchange).

Minimum 

temperature.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Temperature 

differential 

across 

catalyst bed.

Minimum 

temperature 

differential

.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Inlet 

temperature 

to catalyst 

bed and 

catalyst 

condition.

Minimum 

inlet 

temperature 

and catalyst 

condition as 

specified in 

63.11940 (b) 

(3).

Continuous 

for 

temperature

, annual 

for 

catalyst 

condition.

Every 15 

minutes for 

temperature

, annual 

for 

catalyst 

condition.

3-hour block 

average for 

temperature, 

annual for 

catalyst 

condition.

Absorbers and Acid Gas Scrubbers

Influent 

liquid flow.

Minimum 

inlet liquid 

flow.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Influent 

liquid flow 

and gas 

stream flow.

Minimum 

influent 

liquid flow 

to gas 

stream flow 

ratio.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Pressure 

drop.

Minimum 

pressure 

drop.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Exhaust gas 

temperature.

Maximum 

exhaust gas 

temperature.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Change in 

specific 

gravity of 

scrubber 

liquid.

Minimum 

change in 

specific 

gravity.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 504 of 511

For these 

control 

devices, you 

must monitor 

these 

operating 

parameters...

Establish 

the 

following 

operating 

limit during 

your initial 

performance 

test...

Monitor, record, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies.

Data 

measurement

Data 

recording

Data averaging

period for 

compliance

pH of 

effluent 

liquid.

Minimum pH. Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Causticity of 

effluent 

liquid.

Minimum 

causticity.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Conductivity 

of effluent 

liquid.

Minimum 

conductivity

.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.

Regenerative Adsorber

Regeneration 

stream flow.

Minimum 

total flow 

per 

regeneration 

cycle.

Continuous. N/A. Total flow for 

each 

regeneration 

cycle.

Adsorber bed 

temperature.

Maximum 

temperature.

Continuousl

y after 

regeneratio

n and 

within 15 

minutes of 

completing 

any 

temperature 

regulation.

Every 15 

minutes 

after 

regeneratio

n and 

within 15 

minutes of 

completing 

any 

temperature 

regulation.

3-hour block 

average.

Adsorber bed 

temperature.

Minimum 

temperature.

Continuousl

y during 

regeneratio

n except 

during any 

temperature 

regulating 

portion of 

the 

regeneratio

n cycle.

N/A. Average of 

regeneration 

cycle.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 505 of 511

For these 

control 

devices, you 

must monitor 

these 

operating 

parameters...

Establish 

the 

following 

operating 

limit during 

your initial 

performance 

test...

Monitor, record, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance using these minimum 

frequencies.

Data 

measurement

Data 

recording

Data averaging

period for 

compliance

Vacuum and 

duration of 

regeneration.

Minimum 

vacuum and 

period of 

time for 

regeneration

.

Continuous. N/A. Average vacuum 

and duration of 

regeneration.

Regeneration 

frequency.

Minimum 

regeneration 

frequency 

and 

duration.

Continuous. N/A. Date and time 

of regeneration 

start and stop.

Adsorber 

operation 

valve 

sequencing 

and cycle 

time.

Correct 

valve 

sequencing 

and minimum 

cycle time.

Daily. Daily. N/A.

Non - Regenerative Adsorber

Average 

adsorber bed 

life.

N/A. Daily until 

breakthroug

h for 3 

adsorber 

bed changeouts.

N/A. N/A.

Outlet VOC 

concentration 

of the first 

adsorber bed 

in series.

Limits in 

Table 1 or 2 

of this 

subpart.

Daily, 

except 

monthly (if 

more than 2 

months bed 

life 

remaining) 

or weekly 

(if more 

than 2 

weeks bed 

life 

remaining).

N/A. Daily, weekly, 

or monthly.

Condenser

Temperature. Maximum 

outlet 

temperature.

Continuous. Every 15 

minutes.

3-hour block 

average.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 506 of 511

Table 6 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Dioxin/furan congener

Toxic equivalency 

factor

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 1

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 0.01

octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran. 0.3

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran. 0.03

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran. 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran. 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran. 0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran. 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran. 0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran. 0.01

Octachlorodibenzofuran. 0.0003

Table 7 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Calibration and Accuracy 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems

If you 

monitor this 

parameter...

Then your accuracy 

requirements are...

And your inspection / 

calibration frequency 

requirements are...

Temperature 

(noncryogenic 

temperature 

ranges).

± 1 percent of 

temperature measured 

or 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees 

Fahrenheit) whichever 

is greater.

Every 12 months.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 507 of 511

If you 

monitor this 

parameter...

Then your accuracy 

requirements are...

And your inspection / 

calibration frequency 

requirements are...

Temperature

(cryogenic 

temperature 

ranges).

± 2.5 percent of 

temperature measured 

or 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees 

Fahrenheit) whichever 

is greater.

Every 12 months.

Liquid flow 

rate.

± 2 percent of the 

normal range of flow.

Every 12 months.

You must select a measurement 

location where swirling flow or 

abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances at the point of 

measurement do not exist.

Gas flow 

rate.

± 5 percent of the 

flow rate or 10 cubic 

feet per minute, 

whichever is greater.

Every 12 months.

Check all mechanical connections 

for leakage at least annually.

At least annually, conduct a 

visual inspection of all 

components of the flow CPMS for 

physical and operational 

integrity and all electrical 

connections for oxidation and 

galvanic corrosion if your flow 

CPMS is not equipped with a 

redundant flow sensor.

pH or caustic 

strength.

± 0.2 pH units. Every 8 hours of process 

operation check the pH or 

caustic strength meter’s 

calibration on at least two 

points. 

Conductivity. ± 5 percent of normal 

range.

Every 12 months.

Mass flow 

rate.

± 5 percent of normal 

range.

Every 12 months.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 508 of 511

If you 

monitor this 

parameter...

Then your accuracy 

requirements are...

And your inspection / 

calibration frequency 

requirements are...

Pressure. ± 5 percent or 0.12 

kilopascals (0.5 

inches of water 

column) whichever is 

greater.

Calibration is required every 12 

months.

Check all mechanical connections 

for leakage at least annually. 

At least annually perform a 

visual inspection of all 

components for integrity, 

oxidation and galvanic corrosion 

if CPMS is not equipped with a 

redundant pressure sensor.

Table 8 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Methods and Procedures 

for Conducting Performance Tests for Process Vents

For each control 

device used to meet 

the emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for the 

following pollutant... You must... Using...

Total hydrocarbons. Measure the total 

hydrocarbon 

concentration at the 

outlet of the final 

control device or in the 

stack.

Method 25A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7.

Conduct each test run 

for a minimum of 1 hour.

Total organic HAP. Measure the total 

organic HAP 

concentration at the 

outlet of the final 

control device or in the 

stack.

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-6 and 

ASTM D6420-99. Conduct 

each test run for a 

minimum of 1 hour.

Method 320 at 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A and 

ASTM D6348-03. Conduct 

each test run for a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

Vinyl chloride. Measure the vinyl 

chloride concentration 

at the outlet of the 

final control device or 

in the stack.

Method 18 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-6.

Conduct each test run 

for a minimum of 1 hour.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 509 of 511

For each control 

device used to meet 

the emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for the 

following pollutant... You must... Using...

Hydrogen chloride. Measure hydrogen 

chloride concentrations 

at the outlet of the 

final control device or 

in the stack.

Method 26 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8, 

collect 60 dry standard 

liters of gas per test 

run; or

Method 26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8, 

collect 1 dry standard 

cubic meter of gas per 

test run.

Dioxin/furan. Measure dioxin/furan 

concentrations on a 

toxic equivalency basis 

(and report total mass 

per isomer) at the 

outlet of the final 

control device or in the 

stack.

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-7 and 

collect 5 dry standard 

cubic meters of gas per 

test run.

Any pollutant from a 

continuous, batch, or 

combination of 

continuous and batch 

process vent(s).

Select sampling port 

locations and the number 

of traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1. 

Determine gas velocity 

and volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 

2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1 and A2.

Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis and 

correct concentrations 

the specified percent 

oxygen in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart.

Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-2 using the same 

sampling site and time 

as HAP samples.

Measure gas moisture 

content.

Method 4 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3.

Table 9 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Procedures for Conducting 

Sampling of Stripped Resin and Process Wastewater

For 

demonstrating...

For the 

following 

Collect samples according to the 

following schedule...
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 510 of 511

emission points 

and types of 

processes...

Vinyl 

chloride...

Total non-vinyl 

chloride organic HAP...

Each stripped resin stream

Initial 

compliance.

Continuous. Every 8 hours 

or for each 

grade, 

whichever is 

more frequent 

during a 24 

hour period.

Every 8 hours or for 

each grade, 

whichever is more 

frequent during a 24 

hour period.

Batch. 1 grab sample 

for each batch 

produced during 

a 24 hour 

period.

1 grab sample for 

each batch produced 

during a 24 hour 

period.

Continuous 

compliance.

Continuous. On a daily 

basis, 1 grab 

sample every 8 

hours or for 

each grade, 

whichever is 

more frequent 

during a 24 

hour period.

On a monthly basis, 

1 grab sample every 

8 hours or for each 

grade, whichever is 

more frequent during 

a 24 hour period.

Batch. On a daily 

basis, 1 grab 

sample for each 

batch produced 

during a 24 

hour period.

On a monthly basis, 

1 grab sample for 

each batch produced 

during a 24 hour 

period.

Each process wastewater stream

Initial 

compliance.

N/A. 1 grab sample. 1 grab sample.

Continuous 

compliance.

N/A. 1 grab sample 

per month.

1 grab sample per 

month.

Table 10 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--HAP Subject to the Resin 

and Process Wastewater Provisions at New and Existing Sources

CAS 

No.

HAP Analyte 

category Test method
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 511 of 511

107211 Ethylene glycol. Alcohol. SW-846 Method 8015C.

67561 Methanol. Alcohol. SW-846 Method 8015C.

75070 Acetaldehyde. Aldehyde

.

SW-846 Method 8315A.

50000 Formaldehyde. Aldehyde

.

SW-846 Method 8315A.

51285 2,4-dinitrophenol. SVOC. SW-846 Method 8270D.

98862 Acetophenone. SVOC. SW-846 Method 8270D.

117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 

(DEHP).

SVOC. SW-846 Method 8270D.

123319 Hydroquinone. SVOC. SW-846 Method 8270D.

108952 Phenol. SVOC. SW-846 Method 8270D.

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

106990 1,3-butadiene. VOC SW-846 Method 8260B.

540841 2,2,4-trimethylpentane. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

71432 Benzene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

108907 Chlorobenzene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

67663 Chloroform. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

126998 Chloroprene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

98828 Cumene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

75003 Ethyl chloride 

(Chloroethane).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

100414 Ethylbenzene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

107062 Ethylene dichloride (1,2-

Dichloroethane).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

75343 Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-

Dichloroethane).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

74873 Methyl chloride 

(Chloromethane).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

75092 Methylene chloride. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

110543 n-Hexane. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

108883 Toluene. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

71556/

79005 Trichloroethane.

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

108054 Vinyl acetate. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

593602 Vinyl bromide. VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

75014 Vinyl chloride. VOC. EPA Method 107.

75354 Vinylidene chloride (1,1-

Dichloroethylene).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.

133020

7

Xylenes (isomers and 

mixtures).

VOC. SW-846 Method 8260B.