C:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd 

### MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: Samantha Lewis, EPA

DATE: June 15, 2005

SUBJECT: VC/CA Industry Meeting

EPA staff and their technical contractors met with representatives from industry and industry trade associations to discuss the po ssible revision of the national effluent guidelines regulations for the vinyl chloride and chlor-alkali (VCCA) manufacturing segments. Appendix A contains a list of the attendees. Both EPA and the industry group provided a list of questions for discussion prior to the meeting which can be found in Appendix B. This memorandum summarizes the meeting discussion points.

General Discussion 1. Mary Smith, EPA, provided a brief intr oduction about the development of revised regulations for the VC/CA manufacturing segment. 2. Bob Elam, ACC, provided an overview of the industries and industry groups present at the meeting and their responsibilities. Questions from Industry to EPA 1. Questionnaire schedule - ACC asked about the schedule for the industry questionnaire. Samantha Lewis stated EPA plans to do a census questionnaire that will be mailed in the Spring of 2006. EPA is planning to work with the trade associations on the development of the questionnaire this summer. The questionnaire will be more comprehensive than the 308 questionnaire that was sent to eight companies during the 304m effluent guidelines planning process. 2. Site visit and sampling program - ACC asked about the timing and number of site visits. Members of the Vinyl Institute expressed concern about the support needed from facilities since EPA is currently conducting enforcement inspections at EDC/VCM and PVC facilities. EPA said the details of the site visit and sampling program have not been finalized. The number of sites EPA will visit will depend on the extent of available sampling data. Currently, EPA expects to visit six facilities, and would like to conduct site visits with potential grab sampling this summer and fall. Multi-day sampling would occur next year. EPA estimates that site visits without sampling would take about a half day to complete. EPA anticipates sending a group of about five people to each site to tour the relevant operations and wastewater treatment at the facility, including potentialMemorandum 15 June 2005 Page 2

C:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd sampling point locations. EPA would also like to collect any operating data or sampling data collected by the site. 3. Toxic Weighting Factors (TWFs) - The trade groups are concerned about the TWFs used in EPA’s calculations. They would be interested in having a third party review of the factors and suggested using support from the Water Environment Federation to review the TWF and calculation methodology. Lynn Zipf stated EPA will be conducting a peer review of the TWFs and methodology. EPA hopes to have this completed prior to finalizing the 2006 304m Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA will use independent, third party reviewers that will be identified. The trade groups asked if stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input on the se lection of reviewers for the Peer Review. Mary Smith said that EPA may consider allowing stakeholders to provide comments. 4. Technical Support Document data - The trade groups are concerned that some of the data in the TSD may be in error. The trade groups will be alerting their members to review the data and provide any comments to EPA. EPA stated companies should provide any additional data they have to EPA to help with the data review. 5. ACC asked if EPA has considered any voluntary initiatives or non-regulatory options. EPA is interested in hearing ideas for consideration from industry. At this time, they will be proceeding with the regulatory development process for this industry. Questions from EPA to Industry 1. Form 2C data and permit collection - EPA plans to collect permits, permit application, and Form 2C data for each facility. EPA asked the trade groups if they would be able to supply any of this information. ACC said that they could provide contact information for individual companies. The trade groups suggested that EPA’s permit collection efforts should begin by contacting Region VI. Dow Chemical mentioned that Dow Freeport is currently preparing a permit application and asked EPA which version of the application they would like. EPA said that they would like the most up-to-date version of Dow’s permit application. 2. Dioxin discharge data - EPA asked if the trade associations have any additional data on dioxin discharges. CCC confirmed that the dioxin data presented in the TSD is the most up-to-date. 3. Dioxin sources in EDC/VCM and PVC processes - EPA identified the chlorine condensate stream in chlorine manufacturing and the oxychlorination quench stream in EDC manufacturing as potential sources of dioxin. EPA asked the trade groups if there are any additional process streams that may be contributing to the dioxin discharge. TheMemorandum 15 June 2005 Page 3

C:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd Vinyl Institute stated that aside from source water the oxychlorination reaction is the only step in the EDC manufacturing process that was identified as having potential for dioxin formation. The Vinyl Institute identified potential sources for dioxin formation based on temperature, chlorine source, carbon source, and the presence of the copper chloride catalyst. EPA asked the trade groups about dioxin sources in stand-alone PVC manufacturing. The Vinyl Institute identified source water and PVC incinerator scrubber wastewater as potential sources of dioxin. EPA asked if industry was implementing any new technologies or process changes to control dioxin. The Vinyl Institute stated that the current practices include solids removal and good incineration practices. 4. TRI reporting - TRI allows manufacturers to report non-detects of dioxin as zero rather than half of the detection limit. EPA as ked the trade groups how VCCA facilities reportdioxin to TRI. The trade groups stated that TRI reporting is not consistent from facilityto-facility. Some facilities report one-half the detection limit for non-detects of dioxin and some facilities report zero. 5. Pollutant reductions in other media - EPA asked the trade groups if there are any new technologies being installed for the reduction of pollutants in other media (e.g., air) that will impact wastewater discharges. The trade groups mentioned that wet air control technologies may be implemented to meet MACT standards. 6. Site visit recommendations - EPA asked the trade groups to recommend potential locations for EPA to site visit that represent various manufacturing processes and treatment technologies. ACC suggested EPA focus its site visits on facilities that contribute the majority of dioxin discharges. The trade groups also suggested that EPA visit facilities located in Region VI since there is a concentration of facilities. The trade groups expressed a concern about EPA’s collection and handling of confidential business information obtained from these visits. The trade groups also stated facilities would want to collect a duplicate sample at all EPA sampling locations. 7. Health and safety training - EPA asked the trade groups what type of health and safety training will be required for EPA personnel to visit the site. EPA asked if they would need to attend a site-specific training session before each visit and what level of PPE will be required for visits that do not require sampling. The trade groups said that most facilities will require, at a minimum, a brief health and safety orientation prior to touring the site. EPA should bring appropriate shoes. Facilities will provide any additional PPE required for specific sampling points. The PPE and safety requirements will vary by both site and sampling point. In-process sampling would be the most difficult and would most likely require site personnel to collect the sample. 8. Sampling points - EPA would like to characterize process streams to determine theMemorandum 15 June 2005 Page 4

C:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd potential source of dioxin through sampling. The data collected routinely varies by facility and therefore the trade associations do not have information about streams currently sampled. 9. Questionnaire - EPA asked the trade groups if they had a preference on the format of the questionnaire. ACC said that an electronic, non-web based questionnaire format is preferred. ACC mentioned that Rick Colyer in the Office of Air is creating a CD ROM questionnaire. EPA will follow up with Rick Colyer to see if they may use this questionnaire as a starting point.C:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd Appendix A Attendee List

Name Organization Telephone Email Mary Smith EPA/EAD (202)566-1056 Smith.maryt@epa.gov Samantha Lewis EPA/EAD (202)566-1058 Lewis.samantha@epa.gov Paul Shriner EPA/EAD (202)566-1076 Shriner.paul@epa.gov Marla Smith EPA/EAD (202)566-1047 Smith.marla@epa.gov Ken Wood DuPont (302)774-8023 Kenneth.n.wood@usa.dupon t.com Lori Weiss ERG (703)633-1658 Lori.weiss@erg.com Meghan Kandle ERG (703)633-1684 Meghan.kandle@erg.com Mary Bachynsky Formosa (973)716-7342 Mbuchynsky@fpcusa.com Frank Borrelli Vinyl Institute (703)741-5665 Frank.borrelli@plastics.org Tom Berger Keller and Heckman LLP (202)434-4285 Berger@khlaw.com

Bob Elam ACC (703)741-5242 Robert_elam@americanche mistry.com Fred Andes B&T (312)214-8310 Fandes@btlaw.com Art Dungan Chlorine Institute (703)741-5764 Adungan@clz.com Jim Williams Dow (304)747-3756 Jim_bob@dow.com Jeff Longsworth B&T (202)408-6918 Jlongsworth@btlaw.com John Westendorf Oxy (972)404-3229 John_westendorf@oxy.com Mindy Gampel EPA/OPEI (202)566-0059 Gampel.mindy@epa.gov Cindy Roberts EPA/ORD/OSP (202)564-1999 Roberts.cindy@epa.gov Lynn Zipf EPA/EAD (202)566-1429 Zipf.lynn@epa.gov Erik Helm EPA/EAD (202)566-1066 Helm.erik@epa.gov Todd Abel CCC (703)741-5856 Todd_abel@americanchemis try.comC:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd 

### Appendix B Questions and Agenda EPA Provided to Industry Prior to Meeting Agenda for EPA’s Meeting with Vinyl Ch loride/Chlor-Alkali (VC/CA) Industry June 7, 2005

I. Overview of Project Selection and Effluent Guidelines Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to publish a plan every two years to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of effluent guidelines required by Section 304(b). During the 2003 annual review, EPA select ed the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 414) for further review because it ranked highest in terms of toxic, priority, and nonconventional pollutant discharges among all industrial point source categories. One of the pollutants driving the pollutant loadings in the screening analysis was dioxin. EPA identified the manufacture of ethylene dichloride (EDC), vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), and polyvinyl chlo ride (PVC) as possible sources of dioxin and conducted a detailed study of these manufacturing processes during the 2004 annual review. EPA refers to EDC, VCM, and PVC manufacturi ng collectively as vinyl chloride manufacturing. In addition, because many chlor-alkali operations are co-located with vinyl chloride manufacturing and because these operations discharge significant quantities of pollutant, EPA also selected the chlor-alkali industrial segment of the inorganic chemical industry for possible revision. The results of the study were published in Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (http://epa.gov/guide/304m/tsd.pdf). EPA is considering possible revision of the national effluent guidelines regulations for the vinyl chloride and chlor-alkali manufacturing segments. Both of these industries have been identified as discharging significant quantities of toxics as measured by “toxic weighted pound equivalents” (TWPEs). Of particular concern is the quantity and toxicity of dioxin discharges in treated wastewater. EPA will be collecting information on vinyl chloride and chlor-alkali manufacturers through site visits, sampling, and an industry questionnaire. EPA is conducting an initial review of discharge information reported to the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

II. Data Collection Request from EPA EPA would appreciate any information on the follo wing topics for use in the industry evaluation: • EPA would like to collect permits, permit applications, and Form 2C data for each facility. Can the trade associations supply any of this information? • Do the trade associations have any additional data on dioxin discharges? • EPA identified the chlorine condensate stream in chlorine manufacturing and theC:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd oxychlorination quench stream in EDC manufact uring as potential sources of dioxin. Are there any additional process streams that may be contributing to the dioxin discharge? What is the source of dioxin for plants manufacturing only PVC? • TRI allows manufacturers to report non-detects of dioxin as zero rather than half of the detection limit. How are VC/CA facilities reporting dioxin to TRI? • Are any new technologies or process changes for flow or pollutant reduction currently being adopted by this industry? • Are any new technologies being installed for the reduction of pollutants in other media (e.g., air) that will impact wastewater discharges? III. Site Visit and Sampling Questions from EPA • Please recommend VC, CA and co-located facilities for EPA’s site visits. EPA is particularly interested in facilities with effective wastewater treatment technologies. • What health and safety training will be required for EPA personnel to visit the site? Will EPA need to attend a site-specific training se ssion before each visit? What level of PPE will be required for visits that do not require sampling? What other safety concerns should EPA evaluate before site visits and sampling? • EPA would like to characterize process streams to determine the potential source of dioxin through sampling. What process streams are currently sampled and VC/CA facilities? IV. Site-specific Questions from EPA Would you prefer that site-specific questions be addressed directly with the facilities, or through the associations?



### Questions Industry Provided to EPA Prior to Meeting • What is the planned level of detail and content of the questionnaire? • What opportunities will there be for industry input on the questionnaire design? Questions on the 308 Request Expected This Year: • What is the schedule for completing the 308 questionnaire for Vinyl Manufacturing? • Will the 308 include site sampling visits? If so, how many and which facilities will be involved? • Will sites be allowed to review this plan early in the process and give inputC:\04NewWork\My Documents\vc\Meetings\June 7 2005 Industry mtg.wpd Questions on the Technical Support Document: • Member companies have reviewed the Technical Support Document, and wish to discuss. Will EPA accept corrections to the TSD? • We recommend a study of Toxicity Weighting Factors by WERF or other third party. Will EPA support this recommendation? Questions on Longer Term Issues: • How will EPA consider data on voluntary reductions which have already been achieved? • What types of incentives are being considered? • Voluntary incentives through existing EPA programs could accomplish significant emission reductions. Would EPA be interested in participating in a discussion on the incentives and obstacles for voluntary reduction?