kurtosis statistic that is greater (or less) than 0 indicates a
relatively peaked (or flat) distribution. Further, the standard error
of the kurtosis statistic (SEK) is calculated by SEK = SQRT(24/N) where
N is the sample size. According to the small sample kurtosis hypothesis
test, if the kurtosis statistic (K) is greater than 2 times the SEK,
the data distribution is typically considered to be non-normal.
    We applied the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests to both the
reported test values and the lognormal values of the reported test
values. If the skewness (S) and kurtosis (K) statistics of the reported
data set were both less than twice the SES and SEK, respectively, we
classified the dataset as normally distributed. If neither of the
skewness (S) and kurtosis (K) statistics, or only one of these
statistics were less than twice the SES or SEK, respectively, then we
conducted the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests for the natural
log-transformed data. Then, we selected the distribution most similar
to a log-normal distribution as the basis for calculating the UPL,
based on EPA guidance documents. If both the reported values and the
natural log-transformed reported values had skewness (S) and kurtosis
(K) statistics that were greater than twice the SES or SEK,
respectively, we selected the normally distributed dataset as the basis
of the MACT floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness
and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values, and
the natural log-transformed reported values, we also chose the log-
normal distribution to comply with EPA guidance. We believe this
approach is more accurate and obtained more representative results than
a more simplistic normal distribution assumption.
    Because compliance with the MACT floor emission limit is based on
the average of a three-run test, the UPL is calculated by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY11.044

Where:

n = Number of test runs.
m = Number of test runs in the compliance average.
s = Standard deviation.
x bar = Mean
t (0.99,n-1) = T-statistic for 99-percent significance, and a sample
size of n.

    This calculation was performed using the following two Microsoft
Excel[scopy] functions:
    Normal distribution: 99-percent UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 5) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 5)x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of
freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+(\1/3\))], for a one-tailed t-value (with 2 x
probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
    Lognormal distribution: 99-percent UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log
Values of Test Runs in Top 5) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test Runs
in Top 5) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom)* SQRT((1/n) +
(\1/3\))]{time} , for a one-tailed t-value (with 2 x probability),
probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
    We followed these procedures for determining the variability of
process vent emission limits (for vent streams from polymerization
reactors, resin strippers, other process components prior to the resin
stripper, VCM recovery system, and wastewater collection and treatment
system). For the stripped resin variability analysis, the same
procedures were followed with one change. The variability calculation
for stripped resins uses the average of the sampling results for each
day of the 30-day sampling period (e.g., essentially 30 runs instead of
three runs for process vents). As a result, the 99-percent UPL equation
uses a compliance average value of 30 instead of 3.
    For wastewater, we followed the same procedures for determining
variability. A variability analysis was performed on the top five
facilities. The skewness and kurtosis statistics were calculated
(following the same procedure as for process vents and resins) to
determine the top 5 data set distribution. The 99-percent UPL value was
calculated for both the normal and log-normal distribution using the
same formula as

process vents and resins, except that the number of samples in the data
set was set to 5 (the top 5 fraction remaining values), and the number
of samples in the compliance average was set to 1 (because the data
provided by facilities only included one value for any wastewater
concentration).
2. Incorporation of Non-Detect Data
    Non-detect values constitute more than 50 percent of the process
vent emissions data for CDD/CDF and HCl, and approximately 42 percent
of the stripped resin data for all reported HAP. For these pollutants,
we developed a methodology to account for the imprecision introduced by
incorporating non-detect data into the MACT floor calculation.
    At very low emission levels for which emissions tests result in
non-detect values, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant
measurement method has a large influence on the reliability of the data
underlying the MACT floor emission limit. Because of resin sample and
emission matrix effects, laboratory techniques, sample size, and other
factors, method detection levels normally vary from test to test for
any specific test method and pollutant measurement. The confidence
level that a value measured at the detection level is greater than zero
is about 99 percent. The expected measurement imprecision for an
emissions value occurring at or near the method detection level is
about 40 to 50 percent. Pollutant measurement imprecision decreases to
a consistent level of 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level
about 3 times the method detection level.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAPJ: Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are using an approach to account for measurement variability
when significant numbers of non-detect measurements are included in the
dataset that starts with defining a method detection level that is
representative of the data used in the data pool.
    The first step in this approach is to identify the highest test-
specific method detection level reported in a data set that is also
equal to or less than the average emission calculated for the data set.
This approach has the advantage of relying on the data collected to
develop the MACT floor emission limit, while, to some degree,
minimizing 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 detection level was other than that specified).
    The second step is to determine the value equal to 3 times the
representative method detection level, and compare it to the calculated
MACT floor emission limit. If 3 times the representative method
detection level is less than the calculated MACT floor emission limit,
we would conclude that measurement variability is adequately addressed,
and we would not adjust the calculated MACT floor emission limit. If,
on the other hand, the value equal to 3 times the representative method
detection level is greater than the calculated MACT floor emission
limit, we would conclude that the calculated MACT floor emission limit
does not account entirely for measurement variability. We, therefore,
use the value equal to 3 times the method detection level, in place of
the calculated MACT floor emission limit, to ensure that the MACT floor
emission limit accounts for measurement variability and imprecision.
The same procedures were followed for non-detect values for the resin
information, but the analysis was done for 30 days worth of samples
from each facility rather than three test runs. We request comment on
this approach to incorporation of non-detect data in the MACT floor.
    We followed the following additional procedures for CDD/CDF TEQ
basis limits. To calculate a limit on a TEQ basis, first, we identified
non-detect values on an individual CDD/CDF congener basis. There are 17
CDD/CDF congeners used to calculate TEQ values. For facilities that
reported some, but not all CDD/CDF congeners as non-detect, we
calculated the mean of the non-detect values for each CDD/CDF congener.
Then we multiplied the toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for each congener
by the mean to determine the TEQ detection level for each CDD/CDF
congener. For facilities that reported all CDD/CDF congeners as non-
detect, we multiplied each non-detect value by the respective TEF
factor. We used the sum of the detection level toxic equivalencies for
each of the 17 CDD/CDF congeners of interest to calculate a TEQ
detection level sum value. The TEQ sum was then used as the detection
limit for the test run. We used the second step discussed above to set
the limit. The methodology is described in detail in the memorandum
MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. We solicit
comment on these procedures. For wastewater, non-detect values were not
incorporated into the variability analysis because they were not
included with the facility submitted survey information.
3. Existing Source MACT Floor Results for Process Vents, Stripped
Resins, and Wastewater
    We identified the best performing five sources in the category (for
process vents and wastewater), or each subcategory (for stripped
resins), and each pollutant (e.g., vinyl chloride, total HAP, HCl, and
CDD/CDF). We then compiled the individual test run and sampling
concentration data for these sources, and conducted a statistical
analysis to calculate the average and account for variability, and,
thereby, determine the MACT floor emission limit.
    Table 4 of this preamble summarizes results of the UPL analysis and
the MACT floor emission limits for existing process vents for each
pollutant. Table 5 of this preamble presents the results for stripped
resins. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is
presented in the memorandum, MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl
Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is
available in the docket.

 Table 4--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for PVC Process Vents at
                          Existing Sources c,d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             MACT floor
       Pollutant (and units of measure)          99% UPL      emission
                                                              limit \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride (ppmv)........................       0.319        0.32
Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).....................     140.17       150
Total HAP (ppmv).............................      11.3     12 \b\

CDD/CDF (TEQ) (ng/dscm)......................       0.0183       0.023 \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
\b\ Limit result of detection limit variability analysis.
\c\ ppmv = parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen. ng/dscm
  = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent oxygen.
\d\ Process vents limits apply at the outlet of the control device which
  controls closed vent streams from polymerization reactors, resin
  strippers, other process components prior to the resin stripper(s),
  certain storage vessels, VCM recovery systems, wastewater collection
  and treatment system, slip gauges, unloading and loading lines, and
  samples.

        Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for PVC Stripped Resins at Existing Sources (ppmw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Bulk resins     Dispersion resins     All other resins
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                MACT
                      Pollutant                                 floor            MACT floor           MACT floor
                                                        99%   emission    99%     emission     99%     emission
                                                        UPL     limit     UPL    limit \a\     UPL    limit \a\
                                                                 \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride......................................     7.1      7.1     54.8           55   0.471         0.48
Total HAP...........................................   167.3    170      100.1          110  33.3         76 \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
\b\ Limit result of detection limit variability analysis.

    For wastewater that exceeds the 10 ppmw vinyl chloride limit at the
point of generation, we determined that the 99-percent UPL is 0.109
ppmw at the outlet of the wastewater stripper and the MACT floor level
of control rounded up to two significant figures is 0.11 ppmw. The
analysis is documented in the memorandum, MACT Floor Analysis for the
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and
is available in the docket. Wastewater streams below the 10 ppmw vinyl
chloride limit at the point of generation, must remain below the 10
ppmw limit.
    Results of the MACT floor analysis for heat exchange systems,
storage vessels, equipment leaks, and other emission sources are
discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.

E. How did EPA determine the MACT floors for new major sources?

    Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing sources, the
approach for determining the MACT floor for new sources is based on
available emissions information. Using such an approach to develop the
MACT floor emission limits for process vents and stripped resins for
each pollutant, we ranked all the available emission concentration,
stripped resin concentration, or wastewater concentration data for each
pollutant from sources within the entire category (for process vents
and wastewater), or each subcategory (for stripped resin) from lowest
to highest. As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, data from
all major sources and the one synthetic area source were included in
this ranking. See section IV.D of this preamble for more information
about the emission concentration and resin concentration data. Based on
this ranking, we calculated the MACT floor limits for each pollutant,
and for the summation of pollutants making up the total HAP value,
based on the performance (of the lowest emitting (best controlled))
source for each pollutant in the category or subcategory.
    We calculated the MACT floor limits accounting for variability for
new sources using the same formula that we used for existing sources.
As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we account for
variability of the best-controlled source in setting floors, not only
because variability is an element of performance, but also because it
is reasonable to assess best performance over time. If we do not
account for this variability, we would expect that even the best-
controlled similar source would potentially exceed the floor emission
levels part of the time, which would mean that their variability was
not properly accounted for when setting the MACT floor. We calculated
the MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile), as described
in section IV.D from the average performance, based on emission testing
and resin sampling of the best controlled similar source, Students t-
factor, the total variability of the best controlled source, and
incorporating the non-detect procedures.
    This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected
as the MACT floor adequately represents the level of control actually
achieved by the best controlled similar source, considering ordinary
operational variability. Tables 6 and 7 of this preamble present the
analysis summaries, and the new source MACT floor limits for PVC
process vents and stripped resins, respectively.
    A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in
the memorandum, MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymer (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.

 Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for PVC Process Vents at
                             New Sources c,d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  MACT
                                                                  floor
           Pollutant (and unit of measure)             99% UPL  emission
                                                                  limit
                                                                   \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride (ppbv)................................  1.53     3.2 \b\

Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).............................  0.162    0.17
Total HAP (ppmv).....................................  0.217    0.22
CDD/CDF (TEQ)(ng/dscm)...............................  0.00428  0.0087
                                                                \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
\b\ Limit result of detection limit variability analysis.
\c\ ppbv = parts per billion by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen. ppmv =
  parts per million by volume dry at 3-percent oxygen. ng/dscm =
  nanograms per dry standard cubic meter at 3-percent oxygen.
\d\ Process vents limits apply at the outlet of the control device which
  controls closed vent streams from polymerization reactors, resin
  strippers, other process components prior to the resin stripper(s),
  VCM recovery systems, certain storage vessels, slip gauges, loading
  and unloading lines, samples, and the wastewater collection and
  treatment system.

          Table 7--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for PVC Stripped Resins at New Sources (ppmw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Bulk resins    Dispersion resins    All other resins
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  MACT
                       Pollutant                                  floor          MACT floor           MACT floor
                                                          99%   emission   99%    emission     99%     emission
                                                          UPL     limit    UPL   limit \a\     UPL    limit \a\
                                                                   \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl chloride........................................     7.1      7.1   40.3           41   0.191         0.20
Total HAP.............................................   167.3    170     57.8           58  25.1         42 \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
\b\ Limit result of detection limit variability analysis.

    The best performing wastewater source is complying with the part 61
NESHAP wastewater standards. The part 61 NESHAP requires that inprocess
wastewater streams that exceed a vinyl chloride concentration limit of
10 ppmw, at the point of generation, be controlled. The best-performing
source achieves this control by using a wastewater steam stripper and
achieves a vinyl chloride concentration at the outlet of the wastewater
stripper of 0.0060 ppmw. The analysis is documented in the memorandum,
MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category, and is available in the docket. We are
proposing that all new wastewater streams meet a vinyl chloride limit
of 10 ppmw, at the point of generation. We are also proposing that new
wastewater streams that exceed the 10 ppmw vinyl chloride limit at the
point of generation, reduce vinyl chloride to a wastewater stripper
outlet concentration of 0.0060 ppmw.
    For equipment leaks, the best performing source complies with the
LDAR requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU and the existing part
61 NESHAP LDAR requirements for rotating and reciprocating pumps and
compressors, and agitators. For storage vessels, the information
collected showed that at all sources, including the best performing
source, materials with vapor pressures greater than 14.7 psia are
stored under pressure; a closed vent system that is routed to a control
device is used at all facilities when filling the tank, or purging the
tank. All other materials are stored at all facilities in fixed roof
tanks.
    The current requirements from the part 61 NESHAP, for reactor
opening losses and equipment openings, set standards that must be met.
In the case of reactors used as strippers, the standard is based on the
sum of allowable reactor opening losses, and the standard for all
downstream equipment (e.g., the stripped resin limits). All affected
sources are required to meet the part 61 NESHAP requirements.
    For heat exchange systems, the best performing source has a leak
action level of 30 ppbw of total strippable VOC in the cooling water or
2.3 ppmv of total strippable VOC in the stripping gas, with twice-daily
monitoring, which is, therefore, the MACT floor for heat exchange
systems at new sources.
    EPA solicits comment on the proposed MACT floors for new PVC
production facilities.

F. How did EPA analyze beyond-the-floor options and determine MACT?

1. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Existing Sources
    Once the MACT floor determinations were done for each category or
subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more stringent
than the MACT floor levels of control (e.g., control technologies or
work practices that could result in lower emissions). A detailed
description of the beyond-the-floor consideration is in the memorandum,
Analysis of Beyond MACT Floor Controls for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymer (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.
    We first identified regulatory requirements for each emission point
that would be more stringent than the MACT floor level of control, and
determined whether they were technically feasible. If the more
stringent requirements were technically feasible, a cost and emission
impacts analysis was conducted for applying them.
    Process Vents. The control technologies that would be needed to
achieve the proposed MACT floor levels for process vents (e.g.,
enhanced vinyl chloride recovery, activated carbon injection, and
fabric filters, in combination with existing controls, such as
incinerators and acid gas scrubbers) are generally the most effective
controls available for reducing vinyl chloride, HCl, total organic HAP,
and dioxins/furans. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor regulatory options
were identified for HAP from process vents.
    Equipment Leaks. For equipment leaks, we are proposing to require
that

facilities implement the LDAR program from 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU,
which is generally equivalent to the HON, and which we identified as
the most effective control of emissions from equipment leaks. We are
also proposing that facilities implement the equipment requirements for
rotating and reciprocating pumps and compressors and agitators from
part 61 NESHAP, which are leakless equipment. Therefore, no beyond-the-
floor HAP emission reduction approaches were identified for equipment
leaks.
    Heat Exchange Systems. For heat exchange systems, the proposed
existing source MACT floor level of control is a LDAR program with a
leak action level of 38 ppbw of total strippable VOC in the cooling
water, or 2.9 ppmv of total strippable VOC in the stripping gas and
monthly monitoring. We analyzed a beyond-the-floor option of requiring
a lower leak action level for the cooling water of 25 ppbw. Average
costs and emission reductions were calculated on a per leak basis. The
results of the analysis showed that 5.78 tpy of total VOC would be
reduced for an annual cost of $175,630, resulting in a cost of $30,386
per ton of VOC reduced. Consequently, we determined it was not
appropriate to go beyond-the-floor considering the cost and emission
reductions of this option.
    Storage Vessels. For storage vessels, the CAA section 114
information collection data indicate that methanol is the primary
material stored in fixed roof tanks ranging from 5,000 gallons to
30,000 gallons associated with PVCPU. We analyzed a beyond-the-floor
option of requiring storage vessels 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. The
subpart Kb standard in 40 CFR 60.112(b), requires material be stored in
controlled tanks if: (1) The material stored has a maximum true vapor
pressure greater or equal to 0.75 psia, and the storage vessel has a
capacity equal to, or greater than 40,000 gallons, or (2) the material
stored has a maximum true vapor pressure greater or equal to 4 psia,
and the storage vessel has a capacity equal to, or greater than 20,000
gallons, but less than 40,000 gallons. Subpart Kb also requires
materials above 11.1 psia to be stored in pressure tanks. The beyond-
the-floor controls include specific sealing mechanisms for internal or
external floating roofs or routing streams from a fixed roof vessel
through a closed vent system to a control device meeting a 95-percent
or greater reduction in volatile organic emissions. We calculated the
emission reduction and cost of 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. Considering the cost and
emissions reduction, we have determined that it is appropriate to
propose this beyond-the-floor requirement for storage vessels. Based on
information submitted by PVC production facilities, we are not aware of
any storage vessels from affected sources that meet the capacity levels
(20,000 gallons or 40,000 gallons), and store material that meet the
vapor pressure levels. Therefore, we estimate that there are no
additional costs and emission reductions for this option for storage
vessels currently at PVCPU. However, the proposed beyond-the-floor
standards for storage vessels will ensure that, if there are any
storage vessels (now or in the future) that meet the capacity and vapor
pressure criteria, they will be controlled. This analysis is documented
in the memorandum, Analysis of Beyond MACT Floor Controls for the
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer (PVC) Production Source Category, and
is available in the docket.
    Five gas holders are currently in use by three facilities, and are
a part of the vinyl chloride recovery system. In these recovery
systems, process vents originating from polymerization reactors, resin
strippers, and wastewater strippers (among others) are routed in closed
vent systems to a separate process to recover unreacted VCM from the
vent gasses. Gas holders provide intermediate storage of vent gasses
which contain VCM before the VCM is recovered, compressed, and recycled
back into the process. Gas holders are cylindrical tanks with a
floating bell top. The tanks contain water that serves as a seal
between the contained gas and the ambient air outside of the tank. The
pressure inside the gas holder changes as gasses are fed to, or removed
from, the tank. The water inside the gas holder is in constant contact
with the vinyl chloride laden gas and can approach saturation. The
primary source of emissions from gas holders is from the water seal on
the gas holder that is continually exposed to the ambient atmosphere.
In addition, as the gas holder bell rises, a thin film of water that
contains vinyl chloride remains on the outer surface of the bell.
Methods to reduce emissions may include keeping the gas holder water
level at the lowest possible level, using either floating objects on
the surface of the water seal or using a thin layer of oil, or using a
windshield around the gas holder water seal.
    We do not have information from emission tests, control
information, or cost information on gas holders. We are requesting
comment and additional information on emissions, controls, and costs of
controls for this emission source.
    Wastewater. For wastewater, EPA has previously determined for the
HON that a beyond-the-floor option of treating streams with HAP
concentrations greater than 1,000 ppmw (of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G,
Table 9 HAP), and annual average flow rates greater than 10 l/min
measured at the point of determination (as specified in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G), is cost-effective ($670/ton in 2010 dollars). The analysis
previously conducted for the HON is applicable to PVC, because the
cost-effectiveness of wastewater treatment depends on the wastewater
flow and HAP concentration, not on the type of process unit from which
the wastewater stream is generated. The same treatment systems (steam
stripping or biotreatment), and the same measures to prevent
atmospheric emissions from the systems conveying the wastewater streams
to the treatment systems, are applicable to wastewater streams that
meet these criteria. Furthermore, 35 percent of PVC production
facilities are co-located with chemical manufacturing process units
that are subject to the HON, and could potentially route PVC wastewater
streams (if any) that meet the total HAP criteria to existing HON
wastewater treatment processes to meet these limits. Consequently, we
are proposing that streams with HAP concentrations greater than 1,000
ppmw (of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Table 9 HAP), and annual average
flow rates greater than 10 l/min be treated as specified in the HON
requirement as a beyond-the-floor HAP emissions reduction approach.
Based on information submitted by PVC production facilities, we are not
aware of any wastewater streams from affected sources that are above
these flow rate and concentration limits. Therefore, we estimate that
there are no additional costs or emission reductions because all
facilities are below the 1,000 ppmw total HAP concentration and 10 l/
min flow rate limits. However, the limit will ensure that, if there are
any wastewater streams meeting the total HAP and flow rate criteria,
they will be controlled.
    Additionally, wastewater generated during maintenance activities is
not currently regulated by 40 CFR part 61, subpart F. We requested and
received

limited information on vinyl chloride and HAP concentrations in
maintenance wastewater streams. We are requesting comment on whether
maintenance wastewater should have separate limits from inprocess
wastewater. We are also soliciting additional data relevant to setting
a maintenance wastewater MACT standard.
    Other Emission Sources. We did not identify more stringent control
requirements than what we are proposing to require at the MACT floor to
reduce emissions from reactor and equipment openings. The proposed MACT
standard requires that, prior to being opened, emissions from reactor
and process component openings must be reduced to a specified level and
ducted through a closed vent system and control device that would meet
the proposed emission limits for process vents. We did identify an
additional work practice that could be used to minimize emissions from
all PVC production facilities. One facility identified placing filter
bags, strainers, and other removable separation media in closed and
sealed containers that remain closed and sealed unless being actively
filled or emptied to minimize emissions. However, we do not have
information on the costs and emission reductions of this work practice,
or the procedures followed. We request comments, and any further
information, including cost and performance data, on this practice, and
other work practices that are being followed by the industry to
minimize emissions from other emission sources.
    Stripped Resin. For stripped resins, we determined that facilities
would use additional steam in existing equipment to reduce the
concentrations of residual vinyl chloride and total HAP to meet the
limits for resins being proposed. We believe that additional stripping
in existing equipment beyond what would be required to meet the
proposed limits would not be technically feasible as the incremental
additional concentration reductions would be either negligible or zero,
and existing sources may not be able to further reduce concentrations
to the beyond-the-floor levels without degrading product. However,
additional HAP emission reductions could be achieved by routing vents
from process components downstream of the resin stripper (e.g., resin
dryers and centrifuges) to an incinerator. We then determined the cost
and emission reductions of applying a 98-percent efficient incinerator
to the process vents downstream of the resin stripper (e.g., dryer and
centrifuge vents). The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8.
    Summary of Beyond the Floor Analysis. Table 8 of this preamble
summarizes the costs of the MACT floor emission level (referred to as
option 1), and one beyond-the-floor option for stripped resins (option
2). Option 2 is the same as option 1 plus the installation of a thermal
oxidizer on vent streams from processes downstream of the resin
stripper.

 Table 8--Summary of Costs for PVCPU To Comply With MACT Control Options
                      for Existing Sources (2010$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total
                                           Total capital    annualized
                 Option                        costs           costs
                                            ($million)      ($million/
                                                              Yr)a, b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--MACT Floor...........................              16              20
2--Option 1 + additional control of                  370             129
 resin..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ No beyond-the-floor options were analyzed for costs for process
  vents, equipment leaks, and other emission sources. The beyond-the-
  floor options for wastewater and storage vessels do not result in
  costs, because no sources currently meet the beyond-the-floor
  applicability requirements for these emission points.
\b\ Calculated using a 7-percent discount factor.

    Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions of each
pollutant for the MACT control options analyzed.

  Table 9--Summary of Emission Reductions for PVCPU To Comply With the
                MACT Control Options for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Option 2
                                                            (Option 1 +
                                          Option 1 (MACT    additional
                Pollutant                  floor)  (tpy)    control of
                                                             stripped
                                                          resin)  (tpy)a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDD/CDF TEQ.............................        2.45E-08        2.45E-08
HCl.....................................              33              33
Vinyl chloride..........................             135             176
Total HAP...............................           1,570           2,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ No beyond-the-floor options were analyzed for process vents,
  equipment leaks, and other emission sources. The beyond-the-floor
  options for wastewater and storage vessels do not result in emission
  reductions, because no sources currently meet the beyond-the-floor
  applicability requirements for these emission points.

    The results provided in Tables 8 and 9 of this preamble were
calculated using data gathered for the PVC industry. We estimate that
applying additional control to reduce emissions from stripped resins
would result in a total annualized cost of $129 million, and would
achieve vinyl chloride and total HAP reductions of 176 tpy and 2,618
tpy, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness of adding a
thermal oxidizer to control emissions from process vents downstream of
the resin stripper was estimated to be $2.7 million per ton of vinyl
chloride reduced, and over $100,000 per ton of total HAP reduced.
Consequently, we determined it was not appropriate to go

beyond the floor, considering the cost and emission reductions of this
option. The results of the beyond-the-floor analysis are documented in
the memorandum, Analysis of Beyond MACT Floor Controls for the
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and
is available in the docket. Table 1 in this preamble summarizes the
proposed emissions limits for existing PVCPU.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for New Sources
    Except for wastewater and storage vessels, we did not identify any
technologies or methods to achieve HAP emission limits more stringent
than the MACT floor limits, or work practices for new units, based on
the best performing PVC facilities. The control technologies and work
practices necessary to achieve the MACT floor levels are generally the
most effective controls available.
    For wastewater, EPA has previously determined for the HON that a
beyond-the-floor option of treating streams with HAP concentrations
greater than 1,000 ppmw (of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Table 9 HAP),
and annual average flow rates greater than 10 l/min is cost-effective
for new sources ($1,300/ton in 2010 dollars for new sources). For the
same reasons discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, the analysis
previously conducted for HON is applicable to PVC because the cost-
effectiveness of wastewater treatment depends on the wastewater flow
and HAP concentration, not on the type of process unit the wastewater
stream is coming from. As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble,
we are requesting comment on whether maintenance wastewater should have
separate limits from inprocess wastewater, and requesting data relevant
to setting a maintenance wastewater MACT standard.
    We also concluded, in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, that it was
cost-effective ($2,000 to $12,000 per ton of HAP) to require floating
roof tanks or fixed roof tanks routed to a closed vent system, and
control device for storage vessels that (1) have a storage capacity
equal to or greater than 40,000 gallons (151 cubic meters), and store
material with maximum true vapor pressures greater or equal to 0.75
psia, or (2) have a storage capacity equal to or greater than 20,000
gallons, and less than 40,000 gallons, and store material with maximum
true vapor pressures greater or equal to 4 psia. Consequently, the
beyond-the-floor options for wastewater and storage vessels are the
only ones being proposed for new sources. Tables 1 and 3 of this
preamble summarizes the proposed emissions limits for new PVCPU.
    EPA solicits comment on the proposed beyond-the-floor
determinations.

G. How did EPA select the compliance and monitoring requirements for
the proposed rule?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements that are adequate to assure continuous
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. These
requirements are described in detail in various sections in the
proposed rule. We solicit comment on the proposed compliance and
monitoring requirements. We selected these requirements based upon our
examination of the information necessary to ensure that the emission
standards and work practices are being followed, and that emission
control devices and process components are maintained and operated
properly. These proposed requirements impose on facilities the minimum
burden that is necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed rule.
1. How did we select the compliance and monitoring requirements for
storage vessels?
    For storage vessels, we are proposing that you meet the operating,
inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements in 40 CFR 63.11910 of
the proposed rule, as discussed in section III.F.1 of this preamble. We
are proposing work practice standards to ensure that pressure vessels
and fixed roof storage tanks are being operated correctly and
maintained. Pressure vessels, during purging and filling, are required
to meet the closed vent system and control device requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.11910(c)(1) of the proposed rule. Annual
monitoring of potential leak interfaces on pressure vessels using EPA
Method 21 is proposed to be used to verify there are no leaks. Any
detectable emissions would be considered a violation of the rule. These
requirements ensure that pressure vessels do not vent to the
atmosphere. We are requesting comment on this requirement.
    Floating roof storage vessels would be required to comply with the
operation, maintenance, and inspection requirements of 40 CFR part 63
subpart WW. The requirements of subpart WW are in many EPA standards,
such as the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON), and provide more
current compliance requirements that better reflect the current state
of operations for the industry. The subpart WW provisions for floating
roof tanks would ensure that floating roof vessels operate correctly by
requiring periodic inspection of the floating roofs.
    If you choose to route vent streams from fixed roof tanks to a
closed vent system and control device, we are proposing that the
control device must reduce the inlet VOC emissions by 95 percent, or
greater. This requirement is based on the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb, which provides reduction requirements for fixed roof
vessels routed to a closed vent system, and control device in 40 CFR
60.112b(a)(3)(ii). These are achievable reductions for storage tanks
that have been previously implemented, as in subpart Kb. You would also
be required to meet the requirements for closed vent systems and
control devices in 40 CFR 63.11925 and 40 CFR 63.11930 of the proposed
rule. These requirements would limit the VOC emissions released to the
atmosphere from storage tanks.
    All types of storage vessels are required to be equipped with
closure devices. You would also be required to visually inspect the
fixed roof tanks and their closure devices for defects initially, and
at least once per calendar year, with the exception of parts of the
fixed roof that you determine are unsafe to inspect.
    For parts that you have determined are unsafe to inspect, you would
be required to prepare and maintain written documentation that
identifies each part and explains why the part is unsafe to inspect,
and to conduct inspections during times when it is safe to do so (as
frequently as practicable, but not required more than once per calendar
year). We have included provisions intended to clarify the required
intervals between inspections, because we have received comments during
development of prior rules that some requirements could be subject to
different interpretations. For example, a requirement to conduct
inspections ``annually'' could be read to mean in every calendar year,
no later than the date 1 year after the previous inspection, or in the
same month every year. To address concerns about when inspections must
be conducted if the storage vessel is out of service on the date when
the inspection must be completed, instead of proposing to require
inspections ``annually,'' we are proposing a requirement to conduct
inspections at least ``once per calendar year.'' For fixed roof parts
that are unsafe to inspect, an inspection may be delayed until an
alternative storage vessel can be made available, and the vessel to be
inspected can be emptied and temporarily removed from service.

The inspection must be conducted before the fixed roof storage vessel
is returned to service. These provisions are provided in 40 CFR
63.11910(a)(3) of the proposed rule.
    We have included fixed roof repair provisions in 40 CFR
63.11910(a)(4) of the proposed rule for when a defect is identified.
These requirements are based on the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e)
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. We have made one clarification to the
conditions under which delay of repair extensions are allowed. You must
make a first attempt to repair the defect no later than 5 calendar days
after detection, and complete the repair as soon as possible, but no
later than 45 calendar days after detection. The delay of repair
provisions would allow delay beyond 45 calendar days if you determine
that the repair requires emptying or temporary removal from service of
the storage vessel, and no alternative storage capacity is available at
the site. You would be required to repair the defect the next time
alternative storage capacity becomes available, and the storage vessel
can be emptied, or temporarily removed from service.
    Under 40 CFR 63.11910(c) of the proposed rule, pressure vessels, as
defined in proposed 40 CFR 63.12010, may not vent to the atmosphere,
but must instead be vented back into the process, or vented to a closed
vent system and control device. These provisions have been included in
40 CFR 63.11910(c) of the proposed rule to ensure that the pressure
vessel stream is not inadvertently directed to the atmosphere.
2. How did we select the compliance and monitoring requirements for
equipment leaks?
    For equipment leaks, we are proposing in 40 CFR 63.11915 of the
proposed rule, as discussed in section III.F.2 of this preamble, that
you meet the LDAR requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, which
defines leak thresholds and monitoring frequencies for each type of
equipment. These requirements are already being used at several PVCPU
and in other source categories, and have been shown to be effective in
minimizing emissions from leaking equipment.
    Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities
of HAP. We are concerned that a large number of these releases that
occur may not be identified and controlled in a timely manner and may
be due to repeat problems that have not been corrected. The end result
would be significant increases in annual HAP emissions. To address this
issue, we are proposing that you be required to install electronic
indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and record the
time and duration of each pressure release.
3. How did we select the compliance and monitoring requirements for
heat exchangers?
    For heat exchange systems, we are proposing in 40 CFR 63.11920 of
the proposed rule to include requirements equivalent to the primary
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that were
finalized for heat exchange systems for Refinery MACT 1 sources (74 FR
55669), including a LDAR program that requires you to conduct sampling
and analyses using the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method or EPA Method
8021B, no less frequently than monthly for existing sources and twice-
daily (12-hour intervals) for new sources. We are proposing a leak
action level of 38 ppbw of total strippable VOC in the cooling water,
or 2.9 ppmv of total strippable VOC in the stripping gas for existing
sources, and a leak action level of 30 ppbw of total strippable VOC in
the cooling water, or 2.3 ppmv of total strippable VOC in the stripping
gas for new sources. We are also proposing a delay of repair leak
action level of 380 ppbw of total strippable VOC in cooling water, or
29 ppmv of total strippable VOC in the stripping gas for new and
existing sources.
    In contrast to a water sampling method such as EPA Method 601 or
624, the TCEQ Modified El Paso Method provides similar detection
limits, as speciated water analysis and simulates the actual losses
that might occur from cooling water. Further, the Modified El Paso
Method helps overcome potential losses of highly VOC during water
sampling. The sensitivity of the Modified El Paso Method using flame
ionization detector (FID) analysis is typically 0.1 to 0.5 ppmv (as
methane) in the stripped air, with 1.0 ppmv (as methane) being typical.
We note that the Modified El Paso Method has been demonstrated at
numerous sources as an effective means of identifying leaks in heat
exchange systems, and the method has been used extensively for over 20
years.
    We considered the variety of systems that may be monitored, and
whether the Modified El Paso Method should be used exclusively. For the
PVC Production source category, a limited number of compounds may be
present in the process stream for which analytical methods are
available that can detect these compounds at low concentrations.
Additionally, for streams containing highly chlorinated organic
compounds such as vinyl chloride, these alternative methods may provide
lower detection limits and better sensitivity than using the Modified
El Paso Method (which uses a flame ionization detector). We believe
that the specific analytical method used is not critical to the
emission limitations achieved, provided that the method can accurately
quantify pollutant concentrations at levels far enough below the leak
action level that the method could accurately indicate whether or not a
leak exists. As such, we are proposing to include a direct water
analysis method in the proposed rule. We are proposing different
sampling locations and leak repair provisions for heat exchange
systems, including a cooling tower (i.e., closed-loop recirculation
systems) and once-through heat exchange systems (e.g., river or
brackish water), as specified in 40 CFR 63.11920 of the proposed rule.
For closed-loop recirculation systems, sampling could be conducted at
the combined return line at the inlet to the cooling tower prior to
exposure to air. Alternatively, sampling could be conducted in the
``exit'' lines (i.e., water lines returning the water from the heat
exchangers to the cooling tower) from an individual heat exchanger or
bank of heat exchangers. Therefore, if the cooling tower services
multiple heat exchangers, you could elect to monitor only the heat
exchangers in HAP service, monitor at branch points that combine
several heat exchanger exit lines, or monitor at the combined stream
for the entire closed-loop recirculation system. These provisions allow
flexibility and potentially reduce the cost of monitoring, while still
ensuring leak detection. For closed-loop recirculation heat exchange
systems, the impacts of the potential dilution of the leak from
aggregation with other process cooling waters are minimized due to the
physical limitations of quantity of water that can be processed by a
single cooling tower.
    A once-through 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. As such, sampling for once-through heat
exchange systems must be conducted in exit lines from individual heat
exchangers, or group of heat exchangers associated with a single
process unit. If once-through heat exchange systems are not limited to
a single process unit, a once-through heat exchange system could
include all heat exchangers at the entire facility. The potential to
aggregate all cooling water

at a facility prior to sampling would reduce the effectiveness of the
leak monitoring methods, and would allow HAP leaks to remain
undetected, based solely on the dilution effect from the large quantity
of water processed at the facility. Commenters are encouraged to
provide additional information and suggestions for sampling
alternatives that would allow flexibility, but would include a small
enough number of individual heat exchangers to provide meaningful
measurements in once-through systems.
    We are also proposing to allow the owner or operator of a once-
through heat exchange system to monitor both the inlet and outlet of an
individual heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers associated with a
single process unit, and compare the difference between those two
measurements to the leak action level to determine if a leak is
detected. The use of a differential leak is provided for once-through
systems because the water supply for these systems (often river water
or ocean water) may contain higher background concentrations of
hydrocarbons than the purchased water that is used in closed-loop
recirculation systems.
    The proposed rule allows facilities to use more frequent or
continuous monitoring as an alternative, but only requires monthly
monitoring.
4. How did we select the compliance and monitoring requirements for
process vents?
    As described in section III.F.4 of this preamble, we are proposing
in 40 CFR 63.11925 through 40 CFR 63.11950 of the proposed rule,
performance testing, CEMS, and CPMS monitoring requirements to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the limits in Tables
1 and 2 of the proposed rule for process vents.
    To demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emission
limits, we are proposing in 40 CFR 63.11945, and in Table 9 of the
proposed rule, to require initial and annual performance tests using
EPA Method 25A to measure THC. Because measuring THC is more practical
than measuring total organic HAP using available test methods, we are
proposing to allow compliance with the total organic HAP limit to be
determined by measuring THC. We calculated the THC level that equates
to the total HAP limit from the THC data reported for the same best
performing five sources used to calculate the total organic HAP limit.
During the initial performance test, you would be required to establish
an operating limit for the control device operating parameters
specified in 40 CFR 63.11935 and 40 CFR 63.11940 (e.g., incinerator
temperature). You would then demonstrate continuous compliance with the
total HAP limit by staying within the operating limit established for
each operating parameter. In 40 CFR 63.11925 of the proposed rule, we
are providing the option of using a THC CEMS meeting the specifications
in 40 CFR Part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 8A as an
alternative to CPMS. CEMS have been widely used to demonstrate that air
pollution control devices are being operated correctly to ensure
emission limitations are being met.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the CDD/CDF and HCl emission
limits, under 40 CFR 63.11925, 40 CFR 63.11935, 40 CFR 63.11940, and 40
CFR 63.11945 of the proposed rule, compliance would be determined by
performance tests using EPA Method 18 for vinyl chloride, EPA Method 23
for CDD/CDF, and either EPA Method 26 or 26A for HCl. Continuous
compliance with the vinyl chloride, CDD/CDF and HCl emission limits
would be demonstrated using continuous monitoring of control device
parameters (e.g., liquid flow rate and pH for scrubbers, and
temperature and carbon injection rate for activated carbon injection,
temperature for thermal oxidizers), and annual performance tests for
CDD/CDF and vinyl chloride. While parameter monitoring has historically
been a cost-effective monitoring option, CEMS are increasingly being
used in many different situations, and provide more accurate data for
demonstrating continuous compliance. As specified in proposed 40 CFR
63.11925, after EPA publishes final performance specifications for CEMS
for HCl and CDD/CDF, new sources would be required to use CEMS instead
of annual testing and CPMS for these pollutants, and existing sources
would be given the option to use CEMS.
    To demonstrate compliance for process vents, we are also proposing
in 40 CFR 63.11925 of the proposed rule that you must meet the
requirements of proposed 40 CFR 63.11930 for each closed vent system,
and proposed 40 CFR 63.11940 for each control device, including each
incinerator, absorber, adsorber, condenser, sorbent injection system,
fabric filter, or other control device.
    The requirements we are proposing for closed vent systems are based
on the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, although we have
revised and incorporated new requirements, as discussed below.
    The standards for closed vent systems in 40 CFR 63.11930 of the
proposed rule include bypass monitoring requirements, and leak
monitoring and inspection requirements. We are proposing that for all
closed vent systems, except those systems in vacuum service, as defined
in 40 CFR 63.12010, for bypasses that do not contain an automatic flow
control valve and have manual lock-and-key flow control valves, anytime
the manual valve is opened, it would result in a violation. If you
install and maintain a bypass flow indicator equipped with an automatic
alarm system, then any indication of flow through the bypass is a
violation, but the action of opening the valve is not a violation.
These provisions are to ensure that any flow directed to a bypass is
detected and addressed by the operator. We have not included monitoring
exemptions for difficult-to-inspect, or unsafe-to-inspect equipment.
Instead, we are proposing that you maintain and follow a written plan
that requires inspecting the equipment designated as unsafe-to-inspect
as frequently as practical during safe-to-inspect times, but not more
frequently than the otherwise applicable annual inspection schedule.
    For the leak monitoring and inspection requirements in 40 CFR
63.11930 of the proposed rule, we have added provisions based on 40 CFR
part 60, subpart VVa, which require a calibration drift assessment for
the leak detection instrument at the end of each monitoring day. The
post-test calibration drift assessments constitute good practice, and
are a useful quality assurance/quality control tool to validate the
proper operation of the leak detection instrument during the monitoring
period, and, hence, the measurement data.
    We are proposing that closed vent systems that operate in vacuum
service, as defined in 40 CFR 63.12010 of the proposed rule, are not
required to perform the leak monitoring and inspection requirements
required for other closed vent systems. However, if you choose to
operate in vacuum service under 40 CFR 63.11930 of the proposed rule,
you would be required to install a pressure gauge and an automatic
alarm system capable of alerting an operator immediately when the
closed vent system is no longer in vacuum service. Unless you meet the
monitoring and inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.11930 of the
proposed rule for closed vent systems, which are not in vacuum service,
if a loss of vacuum alarm is triggered, you would be in violation of
the rule, and would be required to bring the closed vent system back
into vacuum service. These requirements ensure that vacuum systems
remain in

compliance with the rule and do not leak.
    For process vents that must demonstrate compliance using a control
device and continuous monitoring using a CPMS, the parameters that
would be monitored for each type of control device are specified in
proposed 40 CFR 63.11940. The monitoring requirements for each control
device were primarily based on requirements from 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, with additional
requirements added for new control devices, and significant revisions
for adsorbers, which are discussed in this section.
    In 40 CFR 63.11940 of the proposed rule, we have revised the former
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requirements for ``carbon adsorbers'' to
apply to ``adsorbers,'' and modified the applicability to pertain to
adsorbers containing carbon, zeolite, adsorbing polymers, or any other
adsorbents. This change reduces the need for owners and operators to
request alternative controls, and for EPA to review these requests. The
proposed rule has been written to address known performance issues for
adsorbers, including the regeneration frequency of the adsorbent, the
effectiveness of regeneration, the life of the adsorbent material
before replacement is required, mechanical issues with the system
operation, including valve sequencing, and for non-regenerative
systems, the expected life of the bed before replacement. We are
proposing several monitoring approaches for non-vacuum systems,
regenerative adsorption systems, and non-regenerative adsorption
systems, based on requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subparts G, SS,
GGG, MMM, FFFF, GGGGG, and BBBBBB, as well as approaches which have
been reviewed and approved by EPA through alternative monitoring
requests, and which we believe have universal applicability.
    Under 40 CFR 63.11925(b) of the proposed rule, we are not allowing
process vents to be routed to a flare due to the potential for acid-gas
formation from combustion of halogenated streams at PVCPU. We have
included in 40 CFR 63.11940 of the proposed rule compliance and
monitoring requirements for control devices not covered by 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS, including sorbent injection systems and fabric filters.
The compliance requirements for sorbent injection systems were based on
the NESHAP for the Portland cement manufacturing industry, and the
compliance requirements for fabric filters were modeled after the
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMM, as referenced by the MON), and the Portland Cement Manufacturing
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL).
    We have also included requirements from the MON for batch
processing operations, as discussed in section IV.G.8 of this preamble.
5. How did we select the compliance requirements for wastewater?
    As specified in 40 CFR 63.11965 of the proposed rule, we are
proposing that you must conduct an initial test for wastewater streams
from the affected source to determine the vinyl chloride concentration,
the total HAP concentration (including all HAP listed in Table 9 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart G), and the flow rate. The concentration tests
would be conducted using EPA Method 107 for sampling, in combination
with RCRA Method SW-8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), and EPA Method 305,
Measurement of Emission Potential of Individual Volatile Organic
Compounds in Waste, for analysis. EPA Method 107 is commonly used in
this source category as both a sampling and analytical method for vinyl
chloride. We are proposing to require RCRA Method SW-8260B for analysis
of HAP except for methanol because it provides concentrations for vinyl
chloride, as well as other HAP. We are proposing to require EPA Method
305 for analysis of methanol. Prior to testing, you would be required
to submit a test plan for EPA approval that includes your proposed
method for analysis using these methods.
    For wastewater, you would be required to test for vinyl chloride at
the point where the wastewater is generated, and test for Table 9 HAP
at the point of determination, as defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
The HAP most prevalent in wastewater, and in the largest amounts for
this source category, is vinyl chloride, which is volatile, and is
easily stripped. Testing at the point of generation is necessary to get
an accurate assessment of the amount of vinyl chloride in the
wastewater stream before it potentially volatizes in the downstream
wastewater processes.
    Wastewater streams that contain less than 10 ppmw vinyl chloride
(at the point of generation), and wastewater streams that either
contain less than 1,000 ppmw total HAP, or have a flow rate less than
the 10 l/min criteria (at the point of determination, as defined by 40
CFR part 63, subpart G), are not required to further reduce emissions,
but must remain below these levels. You would test periodically at the
same locations, and using the same test methods described above, to
verify that the stream concentration stays below these levels.
Wastewater streams would be tested monthly. We believe these are the
least burdensome intervals to test for wastewater, considering the
variety of resin grades that may be produced, while still ensuring
compliance with the proposed emission limits. There are also proposed
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11975(d) of the rule for demonstrating that
you remain below the 10 l/min flow rate criterion. These would be
required for wastewater streams that are not required to apply
additional control because they are below the 10 l/min flow rate
criterion. The flow rate determination procedures are consistent with
the HON, which is the basis of the flow rate criterion.
    Under 40 CFR 63.11970 and 40 CFR 63.11975 of the proposed rule, you
would conduct an initial compliance test and monthly testing to
demonstrate compliance with the wastewater stripper outlet
concentration limit. In addition, during your performance test, you
would be required to establish operating ranges for your wastewater
vacuum stripper, including steam-to-feed ratios and wastewater stripper
temperature, and also the vacuum level measured in the column for
wastewater vacuum strippers. These operating parameters are good
indicators of wastewater stripper performance and proper operation. You
would use a CPMS to continuously monitor control device operating
parameters to demonstrate that you meet these operating parameter
limits.
    If the wastewater stream exceeds the 1,000 ppmw HAP concentration
(measured at the point of determination, and based on the list of HAP
in Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G), and exceeds an annual average
flow rate of 10 l/min (as measured at the same point of determination),
then you would be required, under 40 CFR 63.11970(a)(2) of the proposed
rule, to comply with the subpart G Group 1, wastewater suppression and
treatment requirements, and conduct the compliance testing and
monitoring required in subpart G. As discussed in section IV.F of this
preamble, this proposed requirement is a beyond-the-floor option
selected because it was determined to be cost-effective in the HON.
Consequently, we are proposing that you comply with the HON testing and
monitoring requirements for these streams.

6. How did we select the compliance requirements for stripped resin?
    As discussed in section III.F.6 of this preamble, we are proposing
in 40 CFR 63.11960 of the proposed rule that you conduct initial and
continuous performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed vinyl chloride limits and monthly performance tests to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed total HAP limits for stripped
resin. The tests would be conducted at the outlet of the resin stripper
as the stripped resin exits the stripper for continuous processes and
immediately after stripping for batch processes. You would be required
to use EPA Method 107 in combination with RCRA Method SW-8260B, and to
include in your test plan a proposed method for analysis using these
methods. Affected sources are currently measuring vinyl chloride using
EPA Method 107 to comply with limits in the part 61 NESHAP, and would
continue to do so under this proposed rule. Initial and subsequent
sampling for vinyl chloride would follow the same requirements as those
in part 61 NESHAP. You would be required to sample for total HAP
initially, and then on a monthly basis to demonstrate continuous
compliance. We are proposing that RCRA Method SW-8260B also be used to
analyze for concentrations of organic HAP in the stripped resin other
than vinyl chloride. You would be required to submit the test plan for
EPA approval.
    The MACT floor limits for total HAP were based on averages of 30
days of resin sampling. We are proposing that samples be taken monthly,
and compliance be demonstrated, based on a 12 month rolling average of
the 12 most recent months. In the first 12 months following your
demonstration of initial compliance, you would be required to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the total HAP emission limit on
a monthly basis, using the same procedures required for initial
compliance. We request comment on adding an alternative to allow you,
in these first 12 months, to use data collected in the year preceding
your initial compliance to demonstrate continuous compliance. You would
also be required to conduct your monthly monitoring for total HAP on a
day that you are producing the resin grade of which you manufacture the
most, based on total mass of resin produced in the month preceding the
sampling event. To allow you flexibility in selecting this sampling
day, sampling is required monthly, with a minimum of 12 sampling events
per year, but individual sampling events may be 3 to 5 weeks apart.
    In addition, during your initial performance test, you would be
required to establish operating ranges for your resin steam or vacuum
stripper, including steam-to-feed ratios and stripper temperature, and
also the vacuum level measured in the component for vacuum strippers.
You would use a CPMS to continuously monitor control device operating
parameters. The proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed
emission limits.
7. How did we select the compliance requirements for other emission
sources?
    Other emission sources include reactor and other component opening
losses. Reactor exhaust gas streams and any HAP removed from process
component openings must be ducted through a closed vent system and
control device. Therefore, we are proposing the same compliance
requirements for these emission sources as those requirements for
process vents.
8. How did we select the compliance requirements for batch process
operations?
    We are proposing compliance language, based on the MON, to
accommodate batch process vents. The MON primarily references the batch
process vent provisions in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart GGG), but includes some changes and exceptions
when specifying how to calculate uncontrolled emissions from batch
process vents (including emission episode equations), as well as
requiring performance testing under worst-case conditions. Although the
MON uses a hierarchy to determine applicable requirements for combined
emission streams (e.g., it allows you to comply with only the batch
process vent requirements for combined batch and continuous process
vents), 40 CFR 63.11945(b)(3) of the proposed rule requires that you
meet all requirements for each emission stream type in a combined
emission stream (i.e., both continuous and batch process vent
requirements must be met). The proposed rule is written in this way to
ensure compliance for each emission stream.
    Additionally, we revised the purging emission episode equation
included in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) (Equation 12). This equation
specifies that the partial pressure of HAP shall be assumed to be 25
percent of the saturated value if the purge flow rate is greater than
100 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). We revised this requirement
to incorporate iterative methodology equations from the Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63.8050(c)(1)(ii)), requiring you
to determine a HAP-specific saturation factor, and are calling the
episode ``gas sweep of a partially filled vessel,'' in lieu of
``purging.'' This revision is in accordance with Volume II, Chapter 16
of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), issued August
2007. This change includes site-specific values where possible, and
ensures that the calculated emissions are more accurate.

H. How did EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA provides limits for the dates by which
affected sources must comply with the emission standards. New or
reconstructed units must be in compliance with the final rule
immediately upon startup, or the date the final rule is published in
the Federal Register, whichever is later. The proposed rule allows
existing sources 3 years to comply with the final rule, which is the
maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that 3 years for
compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, install, and
test control systems, as well as obtain permits for the use of add-on
controls. We welcome comment on the proposed compliance dates.

I. How did EPA determine the required records and reports for this
proposed rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to develop regulations that
include requirements for reporting the results of testing and
monitoring performed to determine compliance with the standards. You
would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as referenced
in Table 5 of the proposed rule. We evaluated the General Provisions
requirements, and included those we determined to be the minimum
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure
compliance with, and effective enforcement of, this rule, as proposed.
The reports that we are proposing to be required are presented in 40
CFR 63.11985 of the proposed rule.
    We also reviewed the necessary records that need to be kept to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits and
work practice standards. These

recordkeeping requirements are specified either directly in the
proposed rule, in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, or in other
rules to which the proposed rule refers. Recordkeeping requirements are
found in the proposed 40 CFR 63.11990. We are proposing that records be
kept for 5 years, in a form suitable and readily available for EPA
review. We are proposing that records be kept on site for 2 years, and
you can keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
    The General Provisions include specific requirements for
notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. The reports are specified
in proposed 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)
would be required to be submitted semiannually for reporting periods
during which there was an exceedance of any emission limit, or a
monitored parameter, or a deviation from any of the requirements in the
rule occurred, or if any process changes occurred, and compliance
certifications were reevaluated.
    The part 61 NESHAP requires that, within 10 days of any discharge
from a PRD to the atmosphere, the owners or operators must submit to
the Administrator a report containing information on the source,
nature, and cause of the discharge, the date and time of the discharge,
duration of the discharge, the approximate emissions during the
discharge, and the method used for determining the HAP emitted (i.e.,
the calculation method). The report must also include a description of
the actions taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to
prevent future discharges. We are proposing to extend this
recordkeeping and reporting requirement to violations associated with
bypasses, pressure vessels and closed vent systems in vacuum service as
discussed in section III.H of this preamble. We solicit comment on the
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

J. What are the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions?

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008),
EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. In
proposing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods, and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed different standards for those periods. We solicit comment
on this approach.
    We expect facilities can meet the proposed emission standards
during startup and shutdown. For process vents, control is achieved by
routing vents to thermal oxidizers, or vent gas absorbers. During
startup, it is common practice to start the thermal oxidizers using
natural gas, before process vent emissions are routed to them, so that
the oxidizers are at the required temperature prior to receiving the
vent streams and will accomplish the same level of control that they
would during normal operation. Vent gas absorbers operate such that
vent streams can be routed to them at all times. For wastewater streams
and stripped resins, we expect that during startup, streams normally
fed to the wastewater stripper and resin stripper are recycled back to
the process until the correct stripper steam to feed ratio is
established. At such time, the feed streams are no longer recycled back
to the process, and are then sent through the stripper to remove HAP to
the required levels. For batch processes, startups and shutdowns are a
part of their normal daily operations. For the other emission points,
the proposed rule requires work practices that can be followed during
startup and shutdown. Additionally, we are proposing that process
components, such as reactors, cannot be opened except when the process
or process component is shut down. The proposed rule includes several
requirements to reduce emissions during openings.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *.'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode, and,
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. In Mossville Environmental Action Now
v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004), the Court upheld as
reasonable standards that had factored in variability of emissions
under all operating conditions. However, nothing in CAA section 112(d)
or in case law requires that EPA anticipate and account for the
innumerable types of potential malfunction events in setting emission
standards. See, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir.
1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit,
or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After
a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by
`uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other
eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance
by regulation.'').
    Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112(d) as not
requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions
standards. For example, we note that CAA section 112 uses the concept
of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the level of
stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the concept
of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning presents
significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to
operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
    Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for PVC and copolymer
production. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events, and it would be difficult to set a standard that
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, malfunctions can
vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating standard
setting.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards, as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable,'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained, can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See,
e.g., State

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983)). EPA is therefore proposing to include an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits. See 40
CFR 63.12010 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 proposing other regulatory provisions to specify the elements
that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of
the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule. (See 40
CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by
poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by
a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in
a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize
emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11895 of the proposed rule and
to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded * * * '' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA
(see also 40 CFR 22.77).

V. Impacts of the Proposed PVC Rule

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

A. What are the air impacts?

    We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the proposed emission standards.
Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for
compliance for each pollutant and emission point. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum, Costs and Emission Reductions of the
Proposed Standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC)
Production Source Category, and is available in the docket.

              Table 10--Emission Reductions of the Proposed PVC and Copolymers Production Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Pollutant emission reductions (tpy)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                        Emission point                           Vinyl
                                                               chloride   Total HAP   CDD/CDF (TEQ)      HCl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents................................................     0.085       2.26 a       2.45E-08           33
Stripped resin...............................................   129         853                   0            0
Wastewater...................................................     0.40        0.40                0            0
Equipment leaks..............................................     0         680                   0            0
Storage vessels..............................................     0           0                   0            0
Other emission sources.......................................     0           0                   0            0
Heat exchange systems........................................     5.3        35                   0            0
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................   135       1,570            2.45E-08           33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission reductions for process vents are stated as total organic HAP; this value does not include HCl
  reductions.

    We estimated emission reductions of the proposed 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 proposed level of control. We
calculated emission reductions as the difference between the proposed
level and baseline.
    For process vents, we calculated baseline emissions from the
measured HAP concentrations at the outlet of the control devices, and
HAP emissions using the proposed emission limits, in combination with
the vent stream flow rates measured during emission tests.
    For stripped resins, 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 proposed MACT concentration levels. Emissions
were calculated from the HAP concentration in the stripped resin, and
the resin production rate.
    For wastewater, we estimated the emissions from the HAP
concentration in the uncontrolled wastewater streams, in the controlled
wastewater streams, and the wastewater flow rates or generation rates.
    For equipment leaks, we estimated emissions for the baseline LDAR
program in use at each facility, and the proposed equipment leaks
requirements using model equipment counts, average emission factors for
leaking equipment provided in previous EPA studies, and control
efficiencies for LDAR programs provided in previous EPA studies. Model
equipment counts were used because actual equipment counts were not
collected in survey questionnaires sent to the 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.
    We calculated emissions from heat exchange systems from emissions
information provided in information 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 proposed.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources to add
the necessary controls, monitoring devices, inspections, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to comply with the proposed rule. Based on
this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital investment of
15.6 million, with an associated total annualized cost of $19.7 million
(using a discount rate of 7 percent), in 2010 dollars, as shown in
Table 11 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.

  Table 11--Cost Impacts of the Proposed PVC and Copolymers Production
                                Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total
                                          Total capital  annualized cost
             Emission Point               cost (million  (million 2010$/
                                              2010$)           yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents...........................          12.5             3.4
Stripped resin..........................           0              14.5
Wastewater..............................           0               0.791
Equipment leaks.........................           3.14            0.638
Storage vessels.........................           0               0
Other emission sources..................           0               0
Heat exchange systems...................           0               0.309
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................          15.6            19.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated costs to meet the proposed level of control for each
emission point. For process vents, we estimated costs to meet the
proposed level of control for PVCPU that do not currently meet the
proposed emission limit, based on reported data. For such PVCPU that
currently use incinerators 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, and total
organic HAP emission limits. If a PVCPU needed only to meet the HCl
emission limit, we estimated the cost of compliance using a packed bed
scrubber to reduce HCl emissions. To meet the CDD/CDF levels, costs
were based on application of activated carbon injection in combination
with a fabric filter. For PVCPU that currently use an absorber for
vinyl chloride recovery, cost calculations were based on routing the
vent gas from the absorber to existing incinerators. Costs calculations
also included capital and annual costs for testing and monitoring of
vinyl chloride, HCl, total organic HAP, and CDD/CDF.
    For PVCPU not currently meeting the proposed stripped resin limits,
costs to meet the proposed level of control were based on additional
steam being used in the resin stripper to further remove vinyl chloride
and total HAP from the resin. Testing and monitoring costs were also
included in the costs to meet the proposed level of control. We are
aware that there may be concerns about applying additional heat to the
resin because it might degrade the product. Therefore, we are
requesting comment on this cost assumption. We are also requesting data
on the performance of resin strippers when additional steam is added,
and the limits that resin strippers can achieve without degrading the
product. We note that the proposed limits for stripped resins were
calculated, based on the resin analysis data provided by surveyed
facilities, indicating that some facilities are already achieving the
emission limits without affecting their products.
    For PVCPU not currently meeting the proposed wastewater stripper
outlet concentration limit, costs to meet the proposed level of control
were based on additional steam being used in the wastewater stripper to
further remove vinyl chloride. Annual costs also include additional
testing and monitoring required to meet the proposed level of control.
    For equipment leaks, annual costs to conduct LDAR programs were
provided by PVC production facilities in responses to data collection
surveys. The average cost difference between PVCPU complying with 40
CFR part 63, subpart UU and PVCPU complying with other equipment leak
standards, such as 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, was applied to each PVCPU
that did not already meet the proposed level of control (i.e., 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU). We estimated additional costs for an electronic
PRD indicator, based on data collected for other EPA projects. We
calculated costs for complying with the proposed level for heat
exchange systems, based on information collected for other EPA
projects. No costs were estimated for the remaining emission points,
because all affected sources already meet the proposed levels of
control for them.
    The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Costs and Emission
Reductions of the Proposed Standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.

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

    We anticipate affected sources would need to apply additional
controls to meet the proposed emission limits. These controls, such as
steam strippers and scrubbers, use water. We estimate an annual
requirement of 380 million gallons per year of additional wastewater
would be generated as a result of additional steam stripping of PVC
resin and water used for scrubbers. We also anticipate 106 tpy of dust
from activated carbon usage that will need to be disposed.
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed 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 5,900 megawatt-hours per year would be
required for the additional and improved control devices.
    We anticipate secondary air impacts from adding controls to meet
the standards. The combustion of fuel needed to generate additional
electricity would yield slight increases in nitrogen oxide
(NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), 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 form additional electricity
demand.

The combustion of additional fuel from additional electrical usage and
supplemental fuel for incineration devices would yield CO emissions of
1.3 tpy. The analyses are documented in the memorandum, Secondary
Impacts of MACT Level of Control for the Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymer (PVC) Production Source Category, and is available in the
docket.

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

    We performed an economic impact analysis for PVC consumers and
producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs estimated for
this proposed rule. The impacts to producers affected by this proposed
rule are annualized costs of less than 0.7 percent of their revenues,
using the most current year available for revenue data. Prices and
output for PVC should increase by no more than the impact on cost to
revenues for producers; thus, PVC prices should increase by less than
0.7 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule
should be low on the affected industries and their consumers. For more
information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this
proposed rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, 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.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
Cost and Impacts of the PVC and Copolymers Proposed 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 V.B of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2432.01.
    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 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 proposed rule would require 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 proposed standards 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 Designated
Administrator of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify
storage vessels, process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks,
wastewater, heat exchange systems, and other emission sources subject
to this subpart. A notification of performance test must be submitted,
and a site-specific test plan written for the performance test, along
with a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance test, the
owner or operator must submit a notification of compliance status that
documents the performance test and the values for the operating
parameters. A periodic report submitted every 6 months documents the
values for the operating parameters and deviations; a notification of
inspection of vessels and related inspection records; leaking and
monitoring information for equipment leaks; and leaking and monitoring
data for heat exchangers, if greater than leak definition. Owners or
operators of PVC facilities are required to keep records of certain
parameters and information for a period of 5 years. The annual testing,
annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to be $2.5 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 $3.3 million per year. This
estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, conducting and
documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance
inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and
recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the
cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in
section V of this preamble. The total burden for the Federal government
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standard) is estimated to be 1,098 hours per year, at a total labor
cost of $50,482 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, subpart
HHHHHHH. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a
source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are
satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
63.2 (e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not
caused by poor maintenance or careless operation) and where the source
took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source
must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example,
the source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a
written report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the
conditions and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
EPA considered whether there might be any burden associated with the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with
the assertion of the affirmative defense. While recognizing that any
such

burdens are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source
chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. The PVC industry
is currently required to comply with the part 61 NESHAP requirement for
releases from pressure relief valves and reactor manual vent valves,
which does not allow a discharge into the atmosphere from these valves,
except during an emergency. An emergency discharge means a ``discharge
which could not have been avoided by taking measures to prevent the
discharge.'' The owners or operators must, within 10 days of any
release from a pressure relief valve or a reactor manual vent valve,
submit a report to the Administrator. The report must include the
``nature and cause of discharge, the date and time of the discharge,
the approximate total vinyl chloride loss during the discharge, the
method used for determining the vinyl chloride loss, the action that
was taken to prevent the discharge, and measures adopted to prevent
future discharges. The costs for these reports are already accounted
for in the ICR burden estimate. Therefore, 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), EPA is including in the ICR the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the assertion
of the affirmative defense might entail. EPA's estimate for the
required notification, reports, and records, including the root cause
analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on the time and effort required
of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and
document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an
exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to
produce and retain the record and reports for submission to EPA. 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 EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0037. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after May 20, 2011, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by June 20, 2011. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated, and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. To
EPA's knowledge, there are no small entities subject to the proposed
rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The total annualized cost of this rule is estimated to be no more than
$20 million (2010$) 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 only
impacts PVC production facilities, and, thus, does not impact small
governments uniquely or significantly.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed 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.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed
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. EPA specifically
solicits

additional comment on this proposed action from Tribal officials.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available
from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F,
2G, 21, 107, RCRA SW-846, PS-8, PS-9, and the TCEQ Modified El Paso
Method.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to 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 EPA reference methods. EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when additional information is
available for particular VCS.
    The search identified 17 other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, 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.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking,
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS, and to explain why such standards should be used in
this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed 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, EPA used census data at the block group level to
identify demographics of the populations considered to be living near
affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to current
emissions from these sources. In this approach, 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.7 8 9 10
There was only one census block group with its centroids within 0.5
miles of any source affected by the proposed rule. EPA's demographic
analysis has shown that these areas, in aggregate, have similar
proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and
``Other and Multi-racial'' populations to the national average. The
analysis also showed that these areas, in aggregate, had similar
proportions of families with incomes below the poverty level as the
national average, and similar populations of children 17 years of age
and younger.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of
People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
    \8\ Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \9\ 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.
    \10\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA defines Environmental Justice to include meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote meaningful
involvement, EPA has developed a communication and outreach strategy to
ensure that interested communities have access to this proposed rule,
are aware of its content, and have an opportunity to comment during the
comment period. During the comment period, EPA will publicize the
rulemaking via environmental justice newsletters, Tribal newsletters,
environmental justice listservs, and the Internet, including the EPA
Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will also conduct targeted outreach to
environmental justice communities, as appropriate. Outreach activities
may include providing general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this
important for my community) for environmental justice community groups,
and conducting conference calls with interested communities. In
addition, State and Federal permitting requirements will provide State
and local governments, and members of affected communities the
opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions associated
with permitting the sources affected by the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be 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 DDDDDD--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.11140 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11140  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) An affected source is a new source under this subpart if you
commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or
after October 6, 2006 but prior to the effective date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register. An affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction on and after the effective
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register is not
subject to this subpart and is required to comply with subpart HHHHHHH
of this part.
* * * * *
    (e) Each affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction on and after the effective date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register is required to comply with subpart
HHHHHHH of this part by the compliance dates specified in subpart
HHHHHHH. On and after the compliance date specified in subpart HHHHHHH
of this part that applies to your affected source, the requirements in
Sec.  63.11140(d) and Sec. Sec.  63.11141 through 63.11145 of this
subpart do not apply to the affected source.
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart HHHHHHH to read as
follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

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

Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards

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

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11900 By what date must I conduct initial performance
testing and monitoring, establish any applicable operating limits,
and demonstrate initial compliance with my emission limits and work
practice standards?
Sec.  63.11905 When must I conduct subsequent performance testing
and monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance?
Sec.  63.11910 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for storage vessels?
Sec.  63.11915 What are my compliance requirements for equipment
leaks?
Sec.  63.11920 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for heat exchange systems?
Sec.  63.11925 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for process vents?
Sec.  63.11930 What requirements must I meet for closed vent
systems?
Sec.  63.11935 What CEMS and CPMS requirements must I meet to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission
standards for process vent control devices, resin strippers, and
wastewater treatment processes?
Sec.  63.11940 What continuous monitoring requirements must I meet
for control devices required to install CPMS to meet the emission
limits for process vents?

Sec.  63.11945 What performance testing requirements must I meet for
process vents?
Sec.  63.11950 What emissions calculations must I use for an
emission profile by process of my batch process operation?
Sec.  63.11955 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for other emission sources?
Sec.  63.11956 What are my compliance requirements for ambient
monitoring?
Sec.  63.11960 What are my initial and continuous compliance
requirements for stripped resin?
Sec.  63.11965 What are my general compliance requirements for
wastewater?
Sec.  63.11970 What are my initial compliance requirements for
wastewater?
Sec.  63.11975 What are my continuous compliance requirements for
wastewater?
Sec.  63.11980 What are my test methods and calculation procedures
for wastewater?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Definitions

Sec.  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--Emission Limits and Standards
for Wastewater for New and Existing Affected Sources