BEFORE THE

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In re: National Emission Standards for )

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl )

Chloride and Copolymers Production, ) Docket ID No.

77 Fed. Reg. 22,848 (April 17, 2012) ) EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

____________________________________)

PETITION OF THE VINYL INSTITUTE, INC. FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND REQUEST TO STAY THE RULE PENDING RECONSIDERATION

Vinyl Institute, Inc.

1737 King Street

Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

(571) 970-3400

Of Counsel:

Peter L. de la Cruz

Jean-Cyril Walker

Crystal N. Skelton

Keller and Heckman LLP

1001 G Street, N.W.

Suite 500 West

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 434-4141

June 18, 2012
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Summary.................................................................................................................1

II. Reconsideration and Stay of Certain Provisions of the PVC MACT by EPA is Warranted ........4

III. Data Errors Mandate Reconsideration of the Process Wastewater TOHAP Limit.......................5

A. Grounds for the Objection Arose After the Close of the Comment Period......................................6

B. It was Impracticable to Raise an Objection to the Process Wastewater Limit................................7

C. TOHAP Data Does not Reflect Emission Levels Actually Achieved................................................8

D. Non-Vinyl Chloride TOHAP Wastewater Floor Must be Recalculated to use Actual

Sampling Data Reflecting Actual Operating Conditions...............................................................11

IV. EPA Should Have set Process Vent Limits for Vent Gas Absorbers (“VGAs”)...........................12

A. Reconsideration of VGA-Specific Emission Limits is Warranted as EPA Failed to

Review the Information it Deemed Necessary but Already had in its Possession .........................12

B. Subcategorization of VGA is Warranted........................................................................................13

C. MACT Floor Analysis for VGAs ....................................................................................................14

V. Provisions Concerning Bypasses From Closed Vent Systems Must be Revised...........................16

A. Bypass Provisions are Overbroad and Conflict With Equipment Opening Requirements

of the Rule ......................................................................................................................................17

B. Requirements for Bypass Flow Indicators, Car-Seals, or Locks and Keys are

Beyond-the-Floor Requirements Whose Costs and Benefits Should Have Been Analyzed............20

C. Installation of Flow Indicators, Car-Seals, or Locks and Keys to Prevent Bypasses is not

Achievable and is Unnecessary .....................................................................................................23

D. EPA Failed to Consider Equipment and Procedures Currently in Place to Address Bypasses ....27

VI. Pressure Relief Device Requirements are not Achievable and Must be Reconsidered................29

A. PRD Releases From the PVC Industry are Infrequent, of Short Duration, and Release

Minimal Amounts of HAP ..............................................................................................................30

B. All PVC Facilities Have Installed and use Effective Means to Promptly Detect and

Record PRD Discharges for all of Their PRDs .............................................................................32

C. EPA’s Release Indicators Provide no Added Benefit to Current Industry Release

Detection Methods at a Burdensome Cost.....................................................................................33

VII. EPA Should Reconsider and Allow Leak Detection and Repair of Pressure Vessels...............36

A. LDAR is the Common Approach for Dealing With Leaks From Pressure Vessels........................37

B. Using LDAR on Pressure Vessel Leaks is the Only Achievable Approach....................................38

VIII. Vapor Balancing..............................................................................................................................39

A. Vapor Balancing is Widely Used in This Source Category ...........................................................39

B. Vapor Balancing is a Proven Control Technology........................................................................39

C. Vapor Balancing Should be Explicitly Recognized in the Rule .....................................................40
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

ii

IX. Requirements for Combined Process Vents Must be Reconsidered..............................................40

A. It was Not Feasible to Comment on the New Data on Which EPA Based the Final Rule

Requirements for Combined Process Vents...................................................................................40

B. The Applicable Scope of the Combined Process Vent Provision Merits Reconsideration

Based on the Conflict Between the Preamble Explanation and the Language of the

Final Rule ......................................................................................................................................41

X. The New Requirements for Emission Profiles are Overbroad and Must be Reconsidered.........42

A. It was Not Feasible to Comment on the Agency’s New, Much Broader Approach in the

Final Rule to Emission Profiles .....................................................................................................43

B. EPA’s Burden Assessment of the Expanded Profile Requirements was Mistaken.........................44

C. The Revised Definition of Continuous Process Vent is Overbroad, Carries Unintended

Consequences, and Must be Corrected..........................................................................................45

XI. Stay of the PVC MACT Pending Reconsideration is Warranted..................................................45

XII. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................46
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

iii

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

Exhibit I ........................................................................................................................................9

Exhibit II ........................................................................................................................................9

Exhibit III ......................................................................................................................................11

Exhibit IV ......................................................................................................................................13

Exhibit V ......................................................................................................................................16

Exhibit VI ......................................................................................................................................18

Exhibit VII .....................................................................................................................................26

Exhibit VIII....................................................................................................................................35

FIGURES

Figure Description

Figure 1 Comparison of VGA and Thermal Oxidizer Processes ...............................................14

Figure 2 Vent Gas Absorber (“VGA”) Sample Locations.........................................................15

Figure 3 Suspension and Dispersion Processes Flow Diagram: Process Vents.........................25

TABLES

Table Description

Table 1 Final PVC MACT Wastewater Stripper Outlet Concentration Limits ..........................8

Table 2 Non-VC HAPs Reported to EPA Before Close of Comment Period ..........................10

Table 3 Recalculated Wastewater Stripper Discharge Non-VC TOHAP Limitations .............11

Table 4 Best Performing Facilities for Non-VC TOHAP.........................................................11

Table 5 Bypass Vents, Valves, and Other Components ...........................................................27

Table 6 Ambient Area Air Monitoring Systems.......................................................................28

Table 7 Pressure Relief Devices and Releases Reported Over the Past Three Years...............31

Table 8 PVC Industry Use of Vapor Balancing........................................................................39
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

1

I. Introduction and Summary

Pursuant to Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), the

Vinyl Institute (“VI”), on behalf of its PVC MACT Working Group (“Working Group”),1hereby

requests that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or

“Agency”) reconsider and stay the implementation of specified provisions of the final National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers

Production (hereinafter, “PVC MACT”) rule for major and area sources.2 Working Group

members manufacture the majority of the U.S. production volume of homopolymer polyvinyl

chloride (“PVC”) and copolymer resins, and provided detailed comments to EPA’s proposal to

set Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”) maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”)

emissions limitations for PVC and copolymer production facilities.3

After almost four years, several public meetings, hundreds of public comments, and over

$12 million spent by Working Group members to collect emission data and respond to several

Agency information requests, EPA issued its final PVC MACT rule on April 17, 2012. The

Working Group commends the Agency and its staff for their professionalism, transparency, and

diligence throughout the rulemaking process. The Working Group also wishes to recognize the

Agency’s thorough review and consideration of information submitted during the course of this

rulemaking, including the information contained in the Working Group comments on the

proposal,4and the comments provided by other industry associations and the individual

companies that produce PVC and copolymer resins.5

As with any sizeable undertaking, the Working Group has identified 50 or so ambiguities

and issues of concern that must be addressed before the rule is implemented. Most of these

issues can be resolved through Agency guidance and clarification, and the industry looks forward

to working with EPA to resolve these outstanding questions. There remain, however, several

errors, textual ambiguities or conflicts, and regulatory oversights that require substantive changes

to the final PVC MACT rule, and thus, must be addressed now through the Agency’s

reconsideration authority:

1

In addition to Vinyl Institute (“VI”) members Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Occidental Chemical

Corporation/Oxy Vinyls, LP, PolyOne Corporation, Shintech Inc., and Westlake Chemical Corporation, the PVC

MACT Working Group includes non-VI members The Dow Chemical Company and Georgia Gulf Corporation.

The Vinyl Institute, Inc., founded in 1982, is a U.S. trade association representing the leading manufacturers of

vinyl, vinyl chloride monomer, vinyl additives and modifiers, and vinyl packaging materials.

2

77 Fed. Reg. 22,848 (April 17, 2012).

3 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0118, Comment submitted by Jean-Cyril Walker, Keller and

Heckman LLP on behalf of The Vinyl Institute, PVC MACT Working Group.

4 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0118; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146;

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0168.

5 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0134; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0139;

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0154; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0142;

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0144; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0151;

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0153; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0160.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

2

 Process wastewater limit for non-vinyl chloride (“non-VC”) total organic

hazardous air pollutants (“TOHAP”) – EPA changed its methodology for setting

limits on non-VC TOHAPs in process wastewater after the close of the comment

period. The Working Group does not object, in concept, to the new methodology, but

EPA did not provide an opportunity to comment on the new approach, nor did the

Agency request or use a sufficient amount of non-VC TOHAP analytical data to set the

resultant limits. EPA had only nine HAP data points from industry responses to a

survey question for use in setting the non-VC TOHAP limit, one of which was later

found to have been inadvertently obtained from outside the source category. Of the

eight remaining data points, several were based on engineering estimates, and

altogether addressed only three of the 30 listed HAPs regulated by the rule.

Accordingly, the final process wastewater limits for TOHAPs, which decreased almost

ten-fold from the proposed limit, from 1,000 parts per million (“ppm”) to 110 ppm

TOHAP at existing major sources, and to 0.018 ppm for existing area sources and all

new sources, do not reflect the emissions limitations actually achieved by the five best

performing facilities in the source category, as required by the Act.

 Vent gas absorbers (“VGA”) – The Agency’s TOHAP emission limits for process

vents are based on the use of thermal oxidizers as the control device for process vent

gas. In their comments, the PVC industry had argued that the PVC MACT should take

emissions rates into consideration when setting limits for VGAs because of the

significant difference in flow rates between VGAs and thermal oxidizers. In the

preamble to the final rule, EPA indicated that it had considered setting alternative

formats for the process vent emission limits, but did not have sufficient data on process

vent stream flow rates and concentrations to develop or evaluate other emission limit

formats, such as mass emission rates for VGAs. Based on Working Group discussions

with Agency staff during an April 18, 2012 meeting, it appears that EPA may have

missed this information, which was included in a spreadsheet responding to the

Agency’s Section 114 data collection request, and as such, limits for VGAs were not

properly considered.

 Bypasses from closed vent systems – Under the final rule, the opening of valves and

other equipment during routine maintenance activities and other operations, even after

the rule’s equipment clearing/opening procedures have been performed and associated

emission limits are met, constitutes a violation. The industry agrees in general that, as

EPA states in its Summary of Public Comments and Responses,6no unauthorized

release of a “regulated vent stream” from such equipment should be allowed.

However, under the current regulatory text, it appears that a bypass would include the

opening of valves and other equipment during routine maintenance and other

operations, and each such bypass release is declared a “violation,” regardless of the

circumstances, even after the rule’s equipment clearing/opening procedures have been

performed such that the equipment or valve is no longer “in HAP service,” as defined

6 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-26, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,

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

February 2012.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

3

at Section 63.12005. However, it is not reasonable or required under the CAA for EPA

to promulgate a rule that prohibits routine maintenance and other operations on process

equipment or vent systems. In addition, EPA should have considered and allowed the

ongoing use of parametric and other monitoring equipment and practices at existing

facilities, which provide near real-time notification of bypasses, including bypasses for

maintenance, as an alternative to the apparent prohibition of maintenance bypasses and

the required installation of flow monitors, key locks, or car-seals on the hundreds or

thousands of valves at a typical facility.

 Pressure relief device requirements – The final rule unnecessarily requires some

form of lift indication or flow detection, and alarms on all pressure relief devices

(“PRD”) to notify facility operators and determine the duration of a PRD release after it

has occurred. However, EPA failed to consider current equipment and practices at

PVC facilities that are in place to prevent and provide immediate notice of PRD

releases. In addition, the Agency’s economic analysis was fundamentally flawed, as it

relied on unrealistic cost assumptions that significantly undervalue the economic

burden of this requirement.

 Leak detection but no repair for pressure vessels – Under the final rule, facilities

must monitor pressure vessels such as storage spheres for leaks, but any detected leak

is an automatic violation. This is contrary to a fundamental premise embedded in the

Agency’s long-standing leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) programs and other more

recent MACT standards, that a leak is not considered a violation subject to

enforcement if it is repaired within a defined timeframe. The Agency failed to identify

any problems with existing LDAR programs for pressure vessels at PVC facilities or

provide any rationale as to why PVC facilities should be treated differently from all

other facilities with pressure vessels.

 Vapor balancing – The final PVC MACT does not allow the industry’s existing

practice vapor balancing and venting of tanks back to the process during loading and

unloading operations. EPA recommends this approach in recent MACT proposals, but

the PVC MACT is inexplicably silent on this procedure.

 Overlapping rule requirements for control devices and emissions profiles on

process vent streams – The rule requires facilities handling vent streams from

multiple facilities to comply with the most stringent rule applicable to their common

control device, whether it is the HON, the PVC MACT, or another rule. The rule is

silent and EPA was unable to answer, however, whether the most stringent standard

extends back to all source operations up to and including operating parameters or

applies only to the control device emission limits. Similar confusion surrounds EPA’s

requirement that facilities develop emissions profiles for all process gas streams

leaving each process component which vent to a control device.

These matters are of central relevance to the implementation and enforcement of the PVC

MACT, and will significantly hamper normal facility operations and compliance if left

unaddressed.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

4

II. Reconsideration and Stay of Certain Provisions of the PVC MACT by EPA is

Warranted

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act authorizes the Agency to reconsider a final rule under the

CAA upon objection by a petitioner.7The EPA has no choice, and the Act directs that the

Administrator “shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration,” if the petitioner can meet two

statutory preconditions. First, petitioners must demonstrate either that it was impracticable to

raise an objection during the public comment period, or that the grounds for such objection arose

after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review). Second,

the objection must be of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.8

Regardless of whether a request meets the preconditions for mandatory reconsideration,

the Agency also may exercise its own discretion to reconsider a rule. Although Section

112(d)(6) requires EPA to review and revise its MACT standards at least every eight years,9

“nothing prohibits EPA from reassessing its standards more often.”10 Indeed, the Agency has in

the past reviewed issues that did not strictly qualify for mandatory reconsideration under its

Section 112(d)(6) authority.11 Such review is particularly warranted where, as we discuss further

below, errors in the data underlying the rule have been uncovered, the promulgated limits do not

reflect emission levels actually achieved by the best performing sources, or the Agency did not

“examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action[s].”12

Federal agencies also “have an obligation to deal with newly acquired evidence in some

reasonable fashion,”13 and to reexamine the assumptions and approaches underlying a

rulemaking if there is a change in “a significant factual predicate.”14 This obligation rises to an

imperative where, as here, the Agency itself identifies the data gaps that would have led it to

consider a different approach or outcome. Considerations of practicability and whether

petitioners had a meaningful opportunity to raise these issues prior to promulgation of the final

rule also are relevant.15

7

42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B).

8

Id.

9

42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6).

10 Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

11 See e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Notice of Reconsideration, 76 Fed. Reg.

15,266 (March 21, 2011).

12 Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

13 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 187 (citing Catawba Cnty. v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

14 Id. at 187 (citing Bechtel v. FCC, 957 F.2d 873, 881 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

15 ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270, 280 (1987).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

5

In this instance, the hundreds of pages of comments,16 as well as the thousands of pages

and megabytes of sampling data submitted by our small industry, not only reflect the complexity

of this rulemaking, but also the limitations on our resources given the time constraints placed on

the Agency by the Settlement Agreement prescribing the schedule for this rulemaking.17 The

Working Group very much appreciated the Agency’s two-week extension of the comment period

in response to our request for a 45-day extension. We also appreciated the Agency’s willingness

to consider a limited amount of post-comment submissions and sampling data as both EPA and

the Working Group continued to identify substantive issues with the rulemaking.

Ultimately, the final rule would have benefitted from a deeper refinement that additional

time would have allowed. Until EPA published its final rule, we were not able to “divine the

agency’s unspoken thoughts.”18 In some cases, those thoughts remain as shielded now as they

did during the rulemaking. Ultimately, the Agency needs to “get it right.” “Reasoned

decisionmaking is not a dispensable part of the administrative machine that can be blithely

discarded even in pursuit of a laudable regulatory goal,”19 or an arbitrary schedule negotiated by

third parties.

Each of the issues raised by this petition involves some or all of the principles

summarized above. For all of these reasons, and as detailed further below, the Working Group

urges the Administrator to stay the effectiveness of the rule pending reconsideration of the issues

specified in the next sections, and to “convene a proceeding for reconsideration...and provide the

same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the

time the rule was proposed.”20

III. Data Errors Mandate Reconsideration of the Process Wastewater TOHAP Limit

In its notice of proposed rulemaking, 21 EPA did not propose a MACT floor limit for total

HAP in wastewater. Instead, EPA proposed as a beyond-the-floor “HAP emissions reduction

approach,” a 1,000 ppm by weight (“ppmw”) threshold for total organic HAP (including vinyl

chloride), above which facilities would have been required to comply with the wastewater

provisions of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (“HON”).22 Following the close of the comment

period, EPA rejected this approach for the final rule. The Agency decided that all process

wastewater streams “must meet a limit for total non-vinyl chloride organic HAP that is

16 See Docket Document Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0134; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0139; EPA-HQ-OAR2002-0037-0154; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0142; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0144; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-

0151; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0153; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0160.

17 See Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 74 Fed. Reg. 58,955 (Nov. 16, 2009).

18 Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Shell Oil, 950 F.2d 741, 751

(D.C. Cir. 1991)).

19 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 188.

20 American Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B)).

21 See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers

Production; Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 29,528 (May 20, 2011).

22 76 Fed. Reg. 29,586.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

6

significantly lower than the proposed 1,000 ppmw threshold.”23 Specifically, EPA set a 110

ppmw TOHAP limit for process wastewaters at major sources, and a 0.018 ppmw for existing

area sources and all new sources.

A. Grounds for the Objection Arose After the Close of the Comment Period

Reconsideration of the wastewater TOHAP limits is warranted because the grounds for

such objection did not arise until after the close of the public comment period. This factor raises

concerns over the adequacy of notice and opportunity to comment on the final limits. The D.C.

Circuit generally has held that “an agency’s proposed rule and its final rule may differ only

insofar as the latter is a ‘logical outgrowth’ of the former.”24 A final rule is a “logical

outgrowth” of a proposed rule “only if interested parties should have anticipated that the change

was possible, and thus reasonably should have filed their comments on the subject during the

notice-and-comment period.”25 Anticipating the change in a final rule does not mean that the

public must “divine the agency’s unspoken thoughts,” nor did the Working Group.26

As noted above, EPA did not propose a MACT floor for total HAP in wastewater or

solicit comment on such a limit. Indeed, the MACT floor background document only discusses

the establishment of a floor for vinyl chloride.27 The NPRM gave no indication that EPA was

considering any limit for wastewater HAP other than the 1000 ppmw threshold for HON

requirements, as the Agency’s only request for comments concerned maintenance wastewater:

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.

28

The industry did address EPA’s inquiry concerning maintenance wastewater. However, the

Agency quite categorically and emphatically endorsed its HON-based approach for process

wastewater, such that the final limit came as quite a surprise to the PVC industry:

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

23 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 13-69 to 13-70.

24 See Envt’l Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (applicable test is “whether a new round

of notice and comment would provide the first opportunity for interested parties to offer comments that could

persuade the agency to modify its rule”).

25 Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

26 Envt’l Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d at 996 (citing Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1299 (D.C.

Cir. 2000)).

27 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0100, at 20-23, and Attachment C, Memorandum from Eastern

Research Group, Inc. (ERG) to J. Howard, USEPA Subject: MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, April 11, 2011.

28 76 Fed. Reg. 29,550.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

7

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...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...However, the limit will ensure that, if there are any wastewater streams

meeting the total HAP and flow rate criteria, they will be controlled.29

Critically, when the PVC industry met with EPA on June 30, 2011, to discuss the

proposed rule and the Agency’s additional data needs, the industry understood that Agency staff

was only requesting additional data for vinyl chloride in wastewater. Indeed, the bulk of the

wastewater discussion focused on developing sufficient data for a vinyl chloride limit. At the

time, EPA gave no indication that it intended to change its approach to regulating total HAP in

wastewater and impose a much lower limit of 110 ppmw for existing major sources, and 0.018

ppmw for existing area sources and all new sources. Industry had no notice of, or opportunity to

comment on, the new approach. The ultimate TOHAP limits of 110 ppmw at existing major

sources, and 0.018 ppmw for existing area sources and all new sources came as quite a surprise

to the PVC industry.

B. It was Impracticable to Raise an Objection to the Process Wastewater Limit

Separate from the adequacy of notice, the D.C. Circuit has specifically addressed the

bounds of the practicability for raising an objection that compels reconsideration:

While we certainly require some degree of foresight on the part of commenters,

we do not require telepathy. We should be especially reluctant to require

advocates for affected industries and groups to anticipate every contingency. To

hold otherwise would encourage strategic vagueness on the part of agencies and

overly defensive, excessive commentary on the part of interested parties seeking

to preserve all possible options for appeal. Neither response well serves the

administrative process.30

It is important to note that Working Group objections to the wastewater TOHAP limit are

rather narrow. We support EPA’s conceptual approach and calculation method for setting the

process wastewater limits in the final rule, and only object to the incorrect and insufficient

number of data points selected and used to calculate the limit. Following publication of the final

rule, Working Group members examined the underlying data and found significant errors and

issues with the very limited data set used by EPA. It is at this point that notice and practicability

overlap. Had the Agency proposed the TOHAP limit and provided its floor calculations during

the public comment period, it is likely that industry members would have spotted the data gaps

and mistakes and collected the appropriate additional sampling information to buttress the

29 76 Fed. Reg. 29,549.

30 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 186.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

8

record. Or, if EPA had indicated during our June 30, 2011 meeting that TOHAPs in wastewater

were an issue, additional testing might have been conducted. After all, the industry did provide

four years of additional vinyl chloride wastewater data to EPA with its comments on the

proposed rule.

Without the Agency’s calculations in hand, however, it was not possible to readily

identify the incorrect data points and incorrect data uses that are discussed in greater detail in the

next section. The length and scope of the industry comments are evidence of a tremendous

industry effort to provide the Agency with the appropriate data needed to successfully complete

this rulemaking. The accompanying data submissions, which were planned, collected, analyzed,

and reported over the mere 10 weeks allocated for public comment, speak to the impracticability

of anticipating the TOHAP contingency, particularly in the absence of any hint from EPA. This

is not to fault the Agency’s efforts in this rulemaking, particularly given its obligations to

promulgate several other MACTs within the same time frame. The fact remains, however, that

as discussed further in the next section, the final wastewater TOHAP limits deviate from the

CAA § 112(d)(3) requirement that MACT floors must be based on emission levels actually

achieved by the best performing sources in the source category. As such, the administrative

record does not support a conclusion that the facilities selected for the Agency’s floor

calculations represent the best performing sources in the industry.

C. TOHAP Data Does not Reflect Emission Levels Actually Achieved

The Working Group was unable to locate any rationale for the change in TOHAP limit in

any of the background documents released to the docket.31 The closest discussion on point,

which can be found at pages 13-69 of the Summary of Public Comments and Responses,

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and

Copolymers Production, suggests that the Agency failed to first develop a wastewater MACT

floor before seeking to impose the HON requirements as a beyond-the-floor limit.32 For the final

rule, the Agency calculated a non-vinyl chloride total organic HAP limit for process wastewater,

based on non-VC organic HAP data reported by PVC facilities in response to the Section 114

Request and using the same calculation methodology used to determine the limit for vinyl

chloride. The resulting limits are as follows:

Table 1: Final PVC MACT Wastewater Stripper Outlet Concentration Limits (in ppmw)

Pollutant Existing Major

Sources

New Major

Sources

Existing Area

Sources

New Area

Sources

Vinyl Chloride 6.80 0.28 2.1 2.1

Non-VC TOHAP 110 0.018 0.018 0.018

On its face, the 0.018 non-VC TOHAP limit for existing area sources and all new sources

should have been an immediate red flag to EPA, as it was to the PVC industry, that a problem

exists with the data. The TOHAP limit for existing sources is one order of magnitude higher

31 See, e.g., Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0193, Memorandum from Eastern Research Group,

Inc. to Jodi Howard, USEPA, Subject: Revised Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis

for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, February 8, 2012.

32 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 13-69 to 13-70.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

9

than the VC limit, yet the TOHAP limit for new and area sources, which uses the same stripping

technology, is two orders of magnitude less than the VC limit.

Working Group members reviewed the Microsoft ExcelTM spreadsheet EPA used to

calculate the wastewater limits, and determined that the 0.018 ppmw value used to set the new

source wastewater TOHAP limit had been reported by an area source facility. Upon further

review of the source of this data point, the facility determined that it had inadvertently reported

the value for a single analyte from a groundwater remediation stripper located next to its PVC

plant rather than from the PVC wastewater stripper at the facility. See Exhibit I. Consequently,

as previously communicated to the Agency, the 0.018 ppm by volume (“ppmv”) data point is not

valid for use in setting a MACT emissions limit for PVC facilities.

The other few data points EPA used to calculate the TOHAP limit also do not reflect the

emission levels actually achieved by the industry. The Agency calculated MACT floors for total

non-VC organic HAP in wastewater using data from Sheet K-3-b of its Section 114 Survey.33

The information requested by EPA, and provided by PVC facilities in most instances, was for

2008 data on hand. Significantly, the Agency did not ask for new sampling and analysis for

wastewater HAPs. In this regard, it is important to remember that compliance with the Part 61

Vinyl Chloride NESHAP applicable to all PVC facilities did not require the collection of nonVC data. Thus, any non-VC wastewater HAP data collected by PVC facilities would be limited

to those few HAPs that may be of interest for a particular purpose, such as product quality

control, meeting an existing permit limit, or to support a permit modification or renewal

application. Nor was the industry aware of the use EPA intended for this data until EPA released

the final rule. As the table below indicates, the scarcity of non-VC HAP data available to EPA is

quite apparent when the “Baseline and Reduction Estimate” tab of EPA’s wastewater

spreadsheet is examined.

In short, EPA had only six reported values (including the invalid 0.018 ppmw value for

Oxy Vinyls Deer Park) for only three of the 30 HAPs the Agency’s non-VC TOHAP limit is

intended to address. (MIBK reported for the Shintech facilities is a site-specific HAP which is

not on the list of 30 HAPs EPA identified in Table 10 of the final rule.) Critically, and as Table

2 indicates, most of these values do not reflect actual samples of PVC facility wastewaters, taken

during actual operations. Nor is it clear that the facilities reporting represent the best performing

facilities in the industry.

The Working Group is aware of at least one company that submitted wastewatersampling data in September 2010, covering a site-specific list of 20 HAPs for one of its

facilities,34 but EPA did not use this data in calculating the floors. See Exhibit II. It is not clear

whether the Agency overlooked the data because the data set is not addressed in the background

documents to the final rule. Table 2 clearly indicates, however, that EPA should have accounted

for other HAPs identified in the September 2010 data set, such as acetophenone, chloroethane,

chloroform, and formaldehyde, when setting the final non-VC TOHAP limit.

33 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0193, at 38, 41-42.

34 The wastewater stripper in question is from the OxyVinyls, LP’s Pasadena, TX facility. The submission also

included centrate wastewater data from the OxyVinyls, LP’s Pedricktown, NJ facility, which is not relevant here.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

10

Table 2: Non-VC HAPs Reported to EPA Before Close of Comment Period (in ppmw)

Company & Facility Acetaldehyde EDC Methanol MIBK* Chloroethane Chloroform Acetophenone Formaldehyde Source

Certain Teed Lake

Charles -- -- -- -- --

Dow Midland -- -- -- -- --

Formosa Baton Rouge -- 0.3 -- -- Calculated average EDC trend data from 2005

sample with all constituents below detection limit

Formosa Delaware -- -- -- -- --

Formosa Point Comfort -- -- -- -- --

Formosa SPVC35 NA NA NA NA Unit under construction during survey period

OxyVinyls Deer Park 0.018 -- -- -- Groundwater remediation stripper sample

OxyVinyls Pasadena -- -- -- -- --

OxyVinyls Pedricktown -- -- -- -- --

PolyOne Henry -- -- -- -- --

PolyOne Pedricktown -- -- -- -- --

Shintech Addis -- -- 40 0.26 Engineering estimates

Shintech Freeport -- -- 39 0.259 Sampling results

Shintech Plaquemine -- -- 40 0.3 Engineering estimates

Westlake Calvert City -- -- 2.26 -- Material balance

Westlake Geismar -- -- -- -- --

Georgia Gulf Aberdeen -- -- -- -- --

Georgia Gulf

Plaquemine -- -- -- -- --

0.844 0.0027 656 -- ND ND 5.22 0.025 December 22, 2009

0.01 0.0028 858 -- 0.0028 0.0043 9.11 ND December 29, 2009

8.37 ND 806 -- ND ND 4.79 0.162 January 6, 2010

0.085 ND 490 -- ND ND 9.01 0.085 January 12, 2010

ND 0.0026 265 -- 0.0058 ND 9.19 ND January 19, 2010

OxyVinyls Pasadena

2.11 ND 620 -- ND ND 9.95 ND January 28, 2010

**All six samples

taken during 30-day

test period in

response to EPA 114

letter

*Site-specific HAP

35 The Formosa Specialty PVC (“SPVC”) facility in Point Comfort, TX, submitted a response to the Section 114 Survey, but was not operating during the

Section 114 sampling period. SPVC should be included on reconsideration as it is an exisiting PVC Unit that is currently operating.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

11

The addition of a few more HAPs from just one facility would have resulted in a

significant change in the non-VC TOHAP limits, confirming that the final non-VC TOHAP limit

does not reflect emissions limitations actually achieved by the best performing facilities.

It is important to note that this data set does not include the majority of facilities in the

industry. When an even larger set of data is evaluated, as illustrated in Section D, it is

abundantly clear that the TOHAP limits for new and existing sources do not comport with the

Clean Air Act as they do not reflect emission levels actually achieved by the best performing

sources.

D. Non-Vinyl Chloride TOHAP Wastewater Floor Must be Recalculated to use

Actual Sampling Data Reflecting Actual Operating Conditions

Recognizing the limitations of the non-VC TOHAP data set summarized above, Working

Group members decided to sample their wastewater stripper(s) bottom discharge for all 30 HAPs

listed by EPA in the final rule. Samples were collected and analyzed using the test methods

specified by EPA in the final rule. Given the limited time to file this petition, not all facilities

could fully participate in this exercise. Where possible, existing data from other wastewater tests

also was included.

At a minimum, the database accompanying this petition as Exhibit III demonstrates that

the data used by EPA to calculate non-VC TOHAP limits significantly underreported the HAPs

in PVC facility process wastewaters. That data has been reviewed and analyzed for the top five

performers, and subsequently utilized to calculate a statistically derived upper predictive limit

(“UPL”) value using EPA’s methodology. The Working Group’s recalculated wastewater

stripper discharge non-VC TOHAP limitations are set out in Table 3, and better reflect the

emissions limitations actually achieved by the best performers in the industry.

Table 3: Recalculated Wastewater Stripper Discharge Non-VC TOHAP Limitations (in ppmw)

Existing Major

Sources New Major Sources Existing AreaSources* New Area Sources*

Non-VC TOHAPs 240 20 120 120

*For area sources, we do not have information from Certain Teed

Indeed, Table 4 illustrates how the array of five best performing facilities has changed with this

more expansive data set.

Table 4: Best Performing Facilities for Non-VC TOHAP

Final PVC MACT Rule New Wastewater Data

OxyVinyls – Deer Park PolyOne – Henry

Formosa – Baton Rouge Formosa - SPVC

Westlake – Calvert City OxyVinyls – Deer Park

Shintech – Freeport Westlake – Calvert City

Shintech – Addis PolyOne – Pedricktown

The values set out above are not submitted as replacement limits, but rather to illustrate

the extent to which the wastewater non-VC TOHAP limits of the final rule do not reflect the

emissions limitations actually achieved by the five best performing facilities, assuming for the

sake of illustration that the OxyVinyls’ area source should appropriately be included in the

MACT floor calculation. The wastewater samples and calculations underlying these values are
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

12

the most comprehensive data set that Working Group members could collect between issuance of

the final rule and the deadline for filing this petition. Working Group members expect that

additional data would be obtained to address any Agency data gaps during reconsideration.

The Excel spreadsheets explaining this evaluation are included in the separate electronic

submittal to EPA, and in Exhibit III. Against this backdrop, it is evident that EPA did not fulfill

its obligations to base the MACT floor on actual emissions data reflecting actual operational

performance.36 As the Agency has not demonstrated that these limits are actually achieved and

the grounds for objecting to the final limits arose after the close of the public comment period,

reconsideration of the wastewater stripper discharge non-VC TOHAP limits is warranted and

required under the Act.

IV. EPA Should Have set Process Vent Limits for Vent Gas Absorbers (“VGAs”)

The Working Group concurs with and supports the petition for reconsideration on this

issue filed by PolyOne Corporation. The final PVC MACT limits for process vents are based on

the use of thermal oxidizers as the control device. Three PVC facilities, however, use vent gas

absorption (“VGA”) as vinyl chloride monomer (“VCM”) recovery systems,37 which represent a

radically different technology for controlling emissions from these streams. Thus, in their

comments on the proposed rule, the Working Group argued that the Agency should recognize

that VGAs are a “recovery” control technology, and requested that VGAs be regulated as a

separate subcategory with equivalent MACT floor performance limits based on mass emission

rates.38

A. Reconsideration of VGA-Specific Emission Limits is Warranted as EPA Failed to

Review the Information it Deemed Necessary but Already had in its Possession

In the preamble to the final PVC MACT, EPA acknowledges the VGAs recovery

function and noted that it did consider:

...setting alternative formats for the process vent emission limits. However, we

did not have sufficient information provided from industry on process vent stream

flow rates and concentrations to develop or evaluate other formats, such as mass

emission rates.39

In fact, contrary to EPA’s claimed lack of information, data on stream flow rates and

concentrations for all process vents were provided to EPA as part of the response to the

Agency’s Section 114 Request. Flow rate and concentration for each device, including data for

VGAs, can be found in the various EPA spreadsheets submitted as part of each PVC facility’s

36 Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (in setting the MACT floor,

EPA must “support[] its decision with record data that shows the connection between its MACT floor and the top

performing plants”).

37 VGAs are located at the PolyOne facilities at Pedricktown, NJ and Henry, IL. The OxyVinyls facility at

Pedricktown, NJ shares the VGA at PolyOne’s Pedricktown facility.

38 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146, at 52.

39 77 Fed. Reg. 22,869.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

13

stack sampling submission and posted to the rulemaking docket as Document No. EPA-HQOAR-2002-0037-0107. The chart included as Exhibit IV identifies the location of the flow rate

and concentration data for each facility by Spreadsheet Name, Worksheet Name, and Cell Range.

An extensive report of the stack sampling performed at each PVC facility also was

prepared by industry, describing in detail the sampling locations, quality assurance and quality

control steps, and sample collection and analytical procedures. These reports, which were

submitted as part of each Working Group member’s Section 114 response, but do not appear in

the docket, also provided flow rate and concentration information, including total hydrocarbons

(“THC”). Given the amount of data submitted and available to EPA, it was arbitrary and

capricious for the Agency not to have considered creating a process vent subcategory for VGAs.

Accordingly, EPA should reconsider the industry’s request to subcategorize VGAs.

B. Subcategorization of VGA is Warranted

Section 112(d)(1) of the Act authorizes EPA to “distinguish among classes, types and

sizes of sources within a category or subcategory.”40 In addition, subsections 112(d)(2) and (3)

pervasively refer to standards for sources in each “category or subcategory.” Thus, it is

appropriate for EPA to subcategorize process vent limits by differences in devices, provided such

categorization is reasonable. In this instance, subcategorization is not only reasonable; it is

necessary to prevent a manifest injustice.

The VGAs at both PolyOne facilities were installed to meet the requirements of the Part

61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP. As described in the PolyOne petition for reconsideration, the VGA

uses cold isooctane to absorb the residual VCM supplied by the closed vent system, then heats

the isooctane to remove the VCM from the isooctane, and condenses and returns the VCM back

into the production process. The hot isooctane is cooled for reuse to absorb more VCM. The

isooctane is the absorption media and is continuously reused within the VGA. As a result, the

VGA effectively reuses 99.9% of the VCM entering the unit, as illustrated below.

Unlike a thermal oxidizer, VGAs are not combustion devices and, accordingly, have

significantly different emissions to the atmosphere. Dioxins, HCl, and greenhouse gases are not

produced or released by this technology; isooctane is the measureable component in the THC

measurement. Critically, the outflow from the VGA is intermittent and occurs at a very low rate.

In contrast, the outlet volume flow from a thermal oxidizer is more than 100 times that from a

VGA or 13.4+ dry standard cubic meters per minute (“dscmm”) versus 0.0781 dscmm,

respectively.41 As a result, the concentration value or ppm volumetric dry (“ppmvd”) for all

HAPs or THC measured from intermittent VGA emissions is very high, but the actual mass

emission rate is extremely low. More importantly, the emission profile of the two technologies

varies significantly. Whereas the HAPs emitted from the thermal oxidizer include dioxins, HCl,

and greenhouse gases, among others, the emission composition of a VGA is limited to isooctane

with minor contaminants of VCM and chloroethane.

40 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

41 Based on the concentration database used for the MACT limit calculations.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

14

Figure 1: Comparison of VGA and Thermal Oxidizer Processes

In short, EPA should not apply limits based on combustion technology to a noncombustion recovery device. Stating total HAP or THC emissions in terms of mass flow is a

more accurate and technically sound way of measuring performance and setting compliance

limits for a VGA.

C. MACT Floor Analysis for VGAs

The PVC MACT process vent emission limits are presented in volumetric units corrected

to 3 percent oxygen (“3% O2”). The application of the 3% O2 correction factor to emissions

from a VGA, however, conflicts with the Agency’s direction in the final rule that an O2

correction factor should not be applied to emissions from non-combustion devices.42 According

to the Agency, application of the 3% O2 factor was reasonable because:

Correction of pollutant concentrations to specified percent oxygen normalizes

emissions data and allows for comparison of concentrations from sources with

varying oxygen concentrations in the emission stream. Although typically

applicable to combustion sources, such as thermal oxidizers, concentration

correction for oxygen also applies to the use of VGA systems, such as those

located of [sic] the PolyOne facilities as oxygen concentrations varied from 12.5

percent to 19.5. 43

42 See 77 Fed. Reg. 22,923 (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.11945(d), (d)(3)).

43 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0193, at 37.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

15

The Agency’s rationale is incorrect in this instance. The 3% O2 correction is drawn from

the HON and is intended to allow the addition of supplemental combustion air, but only provides

credit for the amount needed for proper combustion. According to EPA, “this correction was not

intended to apply to other types of control devices:”44

The value of 3 percent originates from good engineering practices. For oxygen

deficient streams, if the proper amount of supplemental combustion air is added,

the outlet stream would contain approximately 3 percent oxygen. Typically,

SOCMI facilities have low oxygen, high VOC/HAP concentration streams that

generally require supplemental combustion air when they are combusted.

Therefore, a correction to prevent dilution was needed in rules for the SOCMI

industry.45

An oxygen correction is unwarranted for the VGAs because the VGA stream is not a

combustion process, and thus no air needs to be added to overcome any possible oxygen

deficiency. Any reported oxygen fluctuation is an artifact of the sampling point operation.

Unlike in the combustion scenario, oxygen is not added upstream of the VGA, either because of

an upset condition or intentionally to promote combustion. As the chart below illustrates, back

drafting air from the vent stack control valve can cause O2 levels detected at the sampling point

to fluctuate from 12-15% up to 20%.

44 See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pesticide Active Ingredient

Production: Summary of Public Comments and Responses, p. 15-3, EPA-453/R-98-011 (May 1999).

45 Id.

Figure 2: Vent Gas Absorber (“VGA”) Sample Locations
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

16

Thus, application of the correction factor is unwarranted. We understand that PolyOne

submitted a similar diagram to EPA with its stack test report in February 2010, and so the

Agency should not have applied the 3% O2 to the VGA data.

We would expect on reconsideration that use of a mass flow limit would obviate the need

for the O2 correction. Accordingly, we are resubmitting as Exhibit V, the data provided as part

of the concentration database from PolyOne, which includes THC results during the stack test.

THC data were collected every minute during the three four-hour tests. The average of each run

was reported. PolyOne and the Working Group believe these data should be used to calculate a

limit specifically for this unique technology. Using these data, the calculated limits would be:

THC 2.0 lb/hr max 3-hr block average

Because the Agency failed to consider information in its possession regarding the

different control technology represented by VGAs, because subcategorization based on

differences in control devices is warranted, and based on the preliminary profile of the MACT

floor presented here, EPA must grant reconsideration on this topic and undertake a corrective

rulemaking.

V. Provisions Concerning Bypasses From Closed Vent Systems Must be Revised

The final PVC MACT rule seeks to “ensure that emissions streams are properly routed to

the closed vent system and delivered to the control device for reduction,”46 before any release to

the atmosphere. Accordingly, the final rule prohibits any “bypass” or diversion of such

emissions from a control device. In EPA’s view, most bypasses are caused by malfunctions,

poor design, operator error, or similar incidents, and thus, exempting such occurrences from the

requirement that MACT standards apply continuously is not justified. In order to ensure that

PVC operators detect and identify bypasses, EPA is requiring the installation of a bypass flow

indicator on valves and other components that are capable of diverting a regulated vent stream

away from the control device directly to the atmosphere. In the alternative, facilities can use a

car-seal or lock-and-key to secure valves and other components in a non-diverting position,

subject to monthly inspections and recordkeeping.

There are thousands of valves and other pieces of equipment at each PVC facility that are

covered by these requirements. Many are used frequently as part of normal operations or

periodic maintenance activities after equipment opening requirements for evacuating the

equipment have been met. Yet EPA has completely overlooked the impact of the bypass

provisions on legitimate maintenance activities. As the final rule is currently worded, no

maintenance activity involving the opening of these valves or other pieces of equipment can be

performed without violating the Act, even if the vent stream is no longer in HAP service or

otherwise regulated. Accordingly, reconsideration is warranted to resolve the textual conflict

between the bypass provisions and the equipment opening requirements of the final rule.

Nowhere in the proposed or final rule, or the voluminous background documents does

EPA provide a rationale for, or assess the cost/benefit of, requiring the installation of flow

46 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-25.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

17

indicators, key locks, or car-seals on the thousands of covered components at PVC facilities in

what is clearly a beyond-the-floor requirement. In addition, ambient air monitoring systems and

procedures currently required of the industry effectively provide the real-time indication EPA

seeks with flow indicators, and certainly more timely notification that an unauthorized emission

event has taken place than monthly inspections now imposed in the final rule. Yet the Agency

refused to consider the effectiveness of these existing, in-place systems. Such a refusal is

arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the Act. Accordingly, reconsideration of the flow

indicator, key lock, or car-seal requirement is warranted, as discussed further below.

Manual vent valve discharges have always been prohibited under the VCM NESHAP.47

The Agency has long recognized, however, that the PVC industry operates as a batch process,

which necessitates frequent equipment openings, and thus included an equipment-opening

standard in the VCM NESHAP.48 The Agency correctly applied these practical considerations to

the final PVC MACT:

In the final rule we are setting standards for this emission source based on vinyl

chloride because the part 61 NESHAP, which constitutes the MACT floor level of

control for reactor and equipment openings, requires work practices to

specifically control vinyl chloride emissions. It is appropriate to continue to set

the standards based on vinyl chloride because it will always be present at this

emission point, and controlling it will control all other HAP.49

In contrast, the Agency’s current approach to bypasses stems from its view that the

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) requires the Agency to ensure

that MACT emissions limitations apply continuously.50 Even so, Sierra Club in no way

prohibits EPA from setting work practice standards to function as continuous emissions controls

in those situations, such as the equipment opening and other normal batch operations, where the

criteria for setting work practice standards has been met. Indeed, EPA recognized the need to

address batch operations in the final PVC MACT, but effectively negated the equipment opening

standard with regulatory language that makes opening any valve under any circumstance a

violation of the Act. Such a clear conflict in regulatory language mandates reconsideration by

the Agency.

A. Bypass Provisions are Overbroad and Conflict With Equipment Opening

Requirements of the Rule

Section 63.11955 of the final rule governing equipment openings requires that almost all

of the HAPs be evacuated from the equipment before it is opened. Specifically:

Before opening any process component (including pre-polymerization reactors

used in the manufacture of bulk resins) for any reason, the quantity of vinyl

chloride must be reduced to an amount that occupies a volume of no more than

47 40 C.F.R. § 61.64(a)(3).

48 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(b)(6).

49 77 Fed. Reg. 22,885.

50 77 Fed. Reg. 22,895.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

18

2.0 percent of the component’s or equipment’s containment volume, or 25

gallons, whichever is larger, at standard temperature and pressure.51

The term “process component” is defined broadly and includes the term “equipment,” which is

defined to include “each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection

system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector and instrumentation system in HAP

service...”52

Paragraph (c) of Section 63.11955 requires that “gas or vapor HAP removed from a

process component in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be vented to a

closed vent system and control device meeting the requirements of §§63.11925 through

63.11950” before opening. As a result of the VCM NESHAP requirements, the longstanding

practice in the PVC industry has been to clear PVC process equipment using either a vacuum

system, nitrogen sweep, or hydraulic displacement, and then vent all of the regulated “waste gas”

or “exhaust gas” streams to the control device before the equipment is opened to atmosphere.

Included as Exhibit VI is a generalized procedure for removing a VCM filter at a typical

PVC facility. As long as these requirements were followed, an operator could open and maintain

his equipment in compliance with the Act. The PVC MACT rule effectively adopted these

NESHAP equipment opening requirements, and thus, opening valves on a process component to

perform routine maintenance, or accessing sampling points or sampling connectors after clearing

the process component of HAP in accordance with Section 63.11955, should not now constitute

a violation of the Act.

As noted above, work practice standards are appropriate where a HAP “cannot be emitted

through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, or that any

requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or

local law.”53 Clearly, residual HAP present at the time of equipment and valve openings used for

batch and maintenance operations cannot be routed to a control device, hence the need for

standards and procedures to ensure the equipment or valve no longer is in HAP service before

opening. EPA creates significant confusion, however, when it states that:

...most bypasses from closed vent systems are caused by malfunctions or other

occurrences (e.g., poor design, improper maintenance, or operational error) that

do not justify an exemption from standards that, under the CAA, apply

continuously....each closed vent system must be designed and operated both to

collect any gas or vapor HAP from each continuous process vent, miscellaneous

process vent and batch process vent, or process component, and to route the

collected vapors to a control device, regardless of whether the closed vent system

is “in HAP service.”

54

51 40 C.F.R. § 63.11955(a) (emphasis added).

52 77 Fed. Reg. 22,937 (to be codified at § 63.12005).

53 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(2)(A).

54 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-30 to 10-31; 77 Fed. Reg. 22,858.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

19

The final rule defines a “bypass” as “diverting a process vent or closed vent system stream to

the atmosphere such that it does not first pass through an emission control device” (emphasis

added). In turn, 40 C.F.R. § 63.11930(c) imposes the following prohibition:

For each closed vent system that contains a bypass as defined in §63.12005 (e.g.,

diverting a vent stream away from the control device), you must not discharge to

the atmosphere through the bypass. Any such release constitutes a violation of

this rule. The use of any bypass diverted to the atmosphere during a performance

test invalidates the performance test. You must comply with the provisions of

either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section for each closed vent system that

contains a bypass that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere.

The Working Group considered the possibility that the terms “closed vent system” and

“process vent” must have some different meaning, such that EPA’s use of one but not the other

in Section 63.11930(c) limited the applicability of the bypass prohibition. The problem is that

the two definitions are essentially circular and process vents appear to have been subsumed into

the definition of a closed vent system. Specifically, the final PVC MACT rule defines a “closed

vent system” at Section 63.12005 as “a system that is not open to the atmosphere and is

composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, flow inducing devices that collect

or transport gas or vapor from an emission point to a control device.” A process vent is

defined in Section 63.12005 as:

A vent stream that is the result of the manifolding of each and all batch process

vent, continuous process vent, or miscellaneous vent resulting from the affected

facility into a closed vent system and into a common header that is routed to a

control device. The process vent standards apply at the outlet of the control

device. A process vent is either a PVC-only process vent or a PVC-combined

process vent. (Emphasis added.)

It would appear, at least initially, that the term “emission point” is intended to provide

some additional guidance. Although not defined in the PVC MACT, EPA has indicated this in

the preamble to its recently proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel

and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and

Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions (“Uniform

Standards”).55 The Uniform Standards would implement a similar scheme for bypasses from

closed vent systems. “The Uniform Standards have, in general, been modeled after the emissionpoint and emissions control-specific subparts of the Generic MACT,”56 which defines an

“emission point” as:

...an individual process vent, storage vessel, transfer rack, wastewater stream,

kiln, fiber spinning line, equipment leak, or other point where a gaseous stream is

released.57

55 National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed

Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions,

77 Fed. Reg. 17,898 (March 26, 2012).

56 See 77 Fed. Reg. 17,902.

57 40 C.F.R. § 63.1101.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

20

In other words, under the PVC MACT, a process component subject to the equipment

opening procedures is an emission point, which is a process vent, which is a closed vent system.

This terminology is of particular concern because in order “to ensure that any flow directed

through a bypass is detected and identified by the operator,”58 paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of 40

C.F.R. § 63.11930(c) require the installation of a bypass flow indicator, or a car-seal or lock-andkey to secure bypass valves in the non-diverting position. EPA makes clear the intended

outcome of these requirements:

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.59

The Working Group has been unable to identify any provision in the final rule that differentiates

these components such that the bypass provisions apply to some components but not others.

Thus, as currently drafted, the bypass prohibition conflicts with the equipment opening

procedures of the rule, and it appears that no maintenance activity involving the opening of a

valve or other piece of equipment can be performed without violating the Act.

Moreover, it is not clear that EPA has fully considered the implication of the current

language. For example, as currently defined, analyzer vents (e.g., exhaust gas from a vinyl

chloride gas chromatograph monitor or other continuous emission monitoring system (“CEMS”))

qualify as bypasses. In contrast, the Uniform Standards address analyzer vents through the

LDAR requirements for a “sampling connection system” (i.e., lines that convent samples to

analyzers and analyzer bypass lines), rather than considering them bypass violations or

deviations.60 If EPA continues to consider all bypasses violations under the PVC MACT, then

any PVC Unit with analyzers that emit HAPs, such as exhaust gases from the Gas

Chromatography (“GC”) or Mass Spectrometry (“Mass Spec”), which are used to comply with

the VCM NESHAP ambient air area monitoring system requirements, would be in continuous

violation. Exhaust gas from analyzers has already been controlled and on reconsideration, EPA

should clarify that analyzers are not subject to the bypass provisions of the final rule.

B. Requirements for Bypass Flow Indicators, Car-Seals, or Locks and Keys are

Beyond-the-Floor Requirements Whose Costs and Benefits Should Have Been

Analyzed

As EPA notes, the PVC industry has long been subject to a prohibition against certain

types of bypasses under the VCM NESHAP.61 It should thus be axiomatic that under the Act,

the prohibition against these bypasses constitutes the MACT floor. Section 112(d)(3) of the Act

58 76 Fed. Reg. 29,553.

59 76 Fed. Reg. 29,553.

60 77 Fed. Reg. 17,954 (“It is our intent that analyzer vents should be subject to the control requirements for

sampling connection systems in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU”).

61 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-30.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

21

requires EPA to set standards that “shall not be less stringent” than the emission controls that

have been “achieved in practice:”

...the statute’s use of terms like “achieved” and “controlled” at the floor-setting

stage urges EPA to focus on what sources have actually done to ameliorate the

pollution caused by their particular set of inputs.62

Section 112(d)(2) authorizes EPA to set emissions standards that are the most stringent

EPA finds to be “achievable.” Otherwise known as “beyond-the-floor” standards, the

“achievable” standards obviously are more stringent than the § 112(d)(3) floor. As the D.C.

Circuit explained, the CAA amendments of 1990 “now requires that beyond-the-floor standards

be achievable and provides a framework for analyzing achievability, including consideration of

cost, energy requirements, and other factors.”63 This analysis has been deemed so critical that in

the absence of any type of quantification of benefits or costs, EPA may have “no basis for

finding that, ‘taking into account the cost,’ emissions reductions from pollution prevention

programs were ‘achievable’ as the statute uses the word.”64

EPA’s imposition of flow indicators, key locks, or car-seals constitute just such a

beyond-the-floor standard for which the Agency should have considered a variety of factors,

including cost. When the Working Group raised the issue at its April 18, 2012 meeting, EPA

staff suggested that no beyond-the-floor analysis was required because the flow indicator and

car-seal requirements were provisions the Agency decided to put in place to address

malfunctions. This argument is patently flawed and fails for two reasons. First, it is clear that

the provisions are not intended to deal simply with malfunctions, but apply also to normal

operations and maintenance activities:

Our intent in this final rule is that control devices will not be bypassed; therefore,

use of the bypass at any time to divert a regulated vent stream to the atmosphere

would be a deviation from the emissions standards. Additionally, due to the

precedent set forth in the recent court vacatur of the exemptions to emissions

standards for startup, shutdown, and malfunction [Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)], we are required to ensure that section 112 emissions

limitations are continuous and apply at all times. Thus, we are not adopting

exemptions for maintenance activities and equipment such as pressure relief

devices, low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, and open-ended valves

or lines as part of this action.65

More importantly, the Agency’s position—that the monitoring of equipment and

reporting of equipment conditions are not emissions standards subject to beyond-the-floor

analysis—is contrary to the plain language of the Clean Air Act. In this regard, Section 302 of

the Clean Air Act defines “emission limitation” and “emission standard” to mean:

62 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 196 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Williams, J., concurring).

63 Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 989 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

64 Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

65 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-26.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

22

...a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity,

rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any

requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous

emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard

promulgated under this chapter.

66

Put simply, this broad language encompasses any requirement to install a flow indicator, key and

lock, or car-seal. The Agency may believe that it can proceed pursuant to its alternative

authority, under Section 114(1)(c), to require the installation and use of monitoring equipment.

Such authority, however, would be limited to the installation of flow indicators, and would not

cover emission limitation measures clearly intended to “limit[] the quantity, rate, or

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis,” such as car-seals and locks

and keys. Moreover, the inclusion of flow indicators with the other two approaches raises

significant questions as to whether flow indicators really are only intended for monitoring.

Given that PVC facilities are already prohibited from bypassing control devices (subject

to equipment opening standards), and that nothing in the record indicates that a PVC facility

currently uses car-seals or flow indicators, and that they are not required by the VCM NESHAP,

this requirement constitutes a beyond-the-floor standard for which EPA should have considered

costs and other factors. A review of the background documents for both the proposed and final

PVC MACT rule indicates that the Agency performed no such analysis.

The Agency’s treatment of the closed vent system bypass provision stands in stark

contrast to its approach to pressure relief devices (“PRDs”). Although the Working Group found

the Agency’s PRD analysis to be fatally flawed, as discussed below, EPA at least conducted an

analysis of the costs and benefits of its beyond-the-floor requirements for equipment leaks,

including installation of PRD flow indicators.67 EPA’s approach for this analysis is instructive

because of the obvious parallels with the bypass requirements. First, EPA determined that the

MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks was compliance with the existing PVC

NESHAP at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart V. Next, the Agency determined that the imposition of a

requirement to comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart UU would be appropriate.68 Like the

bypass provisions, EPA did not specifically identify the requirement to equip PRDs with release

indicators and an alert system as a beyond-the-floor requirement, even though Subpart V does

not include requirements for flow monitoring for PRDs.69 Nevertheless, EPA proceeded to

analyze the costs and benefits of PRD flow indicators. The Agency’s action is particularly

compelling given prior decisions prohibiting the consideration of costs when setting the MACT

66 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k) (emphasis added).

67 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0102, at 19-21, Memorandum from Eastern Research Group,

Inc. (ERG) to J. Howard, USEPA: Costs and Emission Reductions of the Proposed Standards for the Polyvinyl

Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category; see also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR2002-0037-0194, at 27, Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) to J. Howard, USEPA: Revised

Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.

68 77 Fed. Reg. 22,896.

69 See 40 C.F.R. § 61.242-4.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

23

floor,70 thus confirming that EPA viewed the PRD release indicator and alarm as a beyond-thefloor requirement.

The Agency’s failure to develop an analysis of the flow indicator, lock and key and carseal requirements for closed vent systems under the PVC MACT also is curious in light of the

cost analysis it conducted for virtually identical requirements in the recently proposed Uniform

Standards.71 The Uniform Standards are regulatory templates that EPA intends to tailor to

specific source categories and various process components and equipment in future rulemaking.

Thus, EPA’s performance of a cost analysis for the Uniform Standards confirms the applicability

of a similar analysis to the PVC MACT; it confirms that the Agency’s failure to do so was

arbitrary and capricious.

The Working Group recognizes the difficulties EPA faced in grappling with how best to

address malfunctions:

EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not require that emissions that

occur during periods of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section

112 standards. Accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not impossible,

given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur and given the

difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree,

and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. EPA‘s rationale for its

approach to malfunctions is not based on the criteria that must be met to justify a

work practice standard under CAA section 112(h). Further, setting work practice

standards under section 112 presents the same issues as setting numerical

emission limits given the varied nature of malfunctions.72

The preceding discussion clearly explains why the Agency believes that it is unable to address

malfunctions under the Act’s emissions limitation framework. But the accounting difficulties

associated with malfunctions do not grant EPA any extra-statutory authority. Ultimately, the

Agency must work within the constraints of the Clean Air Act, which the EPA has violated by

failing to provide sufficient rationale, including cost analysis, for its actions.

C. Installation of Flow Indicators, Car-Seals, or Locks and Keys to Prevent

Bypasses is not Achievable and is Unnecessary

EPA is requiring that flow indicators, car-seals, or lock-and-key configurations be

installed on bypasses in closed vent systems. Car-seals or lock-and-key configurations arguably

would have the lowest per unit installation costs, but where these are used, EPA is requiring PVC

facilities to:

...visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to

verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting position, and the vent

stream is not diverted through the bypass. A broken seal or closure mechanism

70 See, e.g., National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

71 77 Fed. Reg. 17,898.

72 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 3-2.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

24

or a diverted valve constitutes a violation from the emission limits in Table 1 or

2 to this subpart.

73

As a preliminary matter, the preceding language is unworkable because it is overbroad.

Any time a car-seal is broken or a key turned, including after equipment opening requirements

have been performed, would constitute a violation. Breaking the car-seal or diverting the lockand-key mechanism should not constitute a violation when done in the course of routine

maintenance or normal operations if the car-seal is replaced or the lock-and-key mechanism is

returned to the non-diverting position after maintenance is completed.74 We find it difficult to

believe that the Agency actually intended this outcome, which could be interpreted by inspectors

to constitute innumerable violations, which would be arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, EPA

should reconsider and revise the final rule in order to allow for normal operations and

maintenance activities.

In addition, the Working Group believes that EPA has not fully grasped the scope and

burden of these requirements. Given the lack of an Agency analysis on the PVC MACT car-seal

requirements, the Working Group turned to the recently proposed Uniform Standards for closed

vents systems for a sense of EPA’s possible approach to the PVC MACT requirements. For the

car-seal or lock-and-key requirement, EPA based its estimate on the use of a key lock and chain

at a per unit cost of $97. Taking into consideration sales tax, shipping and installation, the cost

ballooned to $154 per unit.75 We note that certain types of valves commonly in use at PVC and

other chemical facilities cannot be car-sealed or secured with a lock and key and would need to

be replaced at significantly greater expense. EPA did not consider such a cost contingency in its

Uniform Standards analysis, and obviously not for the PVC MACT.

EPA’s estimate that total monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs associated with

the monthly car-seal inspection requirement would be approximately $113 per year has no basis

in reality.76 The Agency’s estimate is based on an assumption that monthly car-seal inspections

would take approximately 10 minutes of operator time per month. Considering that affected

sources must certify compliance, the 3 min/year of Engineering review and 3 min/year of

Managerial (i.e., Responsible Official) review estimated by EPA is grossly underestimated.

Either the Agency believes that this annual cost is a per car-seal estimate, or the Agency does not

mean what the plain language of the rule says about the scope and extent of equipment covered

by the bypass prohibition. In either event, the rule is based on material error in that the cost

estimate is hideously low, or as illustrated by Figure 3, the language is not what the Agency

intended.

73 77 Fed. Reg. 22,916, to be codified at § 63.11930(c)(2)(i) (emphasis added).

74 This may not have been the Agency’s intent, but if so, no language or provision of the final rule makes this clear.

75 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868-0002, at B-18, Development of Monitoring Cost Estimates for

the Proposed Part 65 Uniform Standards for Control Devices – Subpart M, Document.

76 Id. at 10.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

25

Figure 3: Suspension and Dispersion Processes Flow Diagram: Process Vents
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

26

The problem with EPA’s cost estimation and by extension, its approach to bypasses at

PVC facilities is the sheer number and types of components covered by the bypass prohibition.

As Figure 3 indicates, whether the closed vent system begins at discrete emission points, after

the recovery device, or somewhere in between, determines whether facilities must monitor and

inspect thousands, hundreds, or a few score valves under the bypass provisions. Moreover, the

procedures for complying with the car-seal inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures

are significantly more complicated than simply looking to see if a car-seal is in place.

Vent valves are located at the top of structures for high point bleeds, in the middle of pipe

racks normally not accessible but needed for high or low points of expansion loops, between

block valves used to isolate equipment, and many other difficult to reach locations. These

valves, which may be opened during routine maintenance to support batch operations, are all

subject to equipment opening procedures before being accessed. They also are critical to the safe

and proper operation of the facility, and thus are already subject to a painstaking inspection

process that EPA has woefully underestimated.

Working Group members have reviewed the PVC MACT rule and developed an analysis

of initial and monthly compliance with the car-seal inspection requirement, including mandatory

training to ensure safe operation. The analysis, which is enclosed as Exhibit VII, assumes,

conservatively, that a PVC facility with 350 valves and components uses car-seals as the lowest

cost alternative to meeting the requirements. Working Group members also assumed that the

facility has four reactors with four valves or other components that must be opened on a daily

basis. As a result, the Working Group estimates that each PVC facility will incur $29,184

initially, and $763,541 annually thereafter, or approximately $2,192 per valve or component

subject to the car-seal requirements. These are costs in search of benefits where none can be

found.

In addition, Table 5 below clearly illustrates the level of confusion already in place

within the PVC industry over the scope and extent of the Agency’s bypass provisions. For

example, the facilities reporting the highest numbers of potential bypass points assumed the

following should be counted:

 All valves in HAP vapor service;

 1/3 of the valves in HAP liquid service (it was assumed that there is one liquid leg

drain valve for every two block valves in the line);

 All relief devices in HAP vapor service;

 All connectors in HAP vapor service; and

 All pumps, compressors, and agitators.

Whereas, facilities reporting a lower number of bypass points based their estimate on the number

of valves in vinyl chloride service that are covered by their LDAR program, or started counting

valves after the recovery device. It is impossible to determine from the plain language of the

final rule or the Agency’s background documents which approach is the correct one.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

27

Table 5: Bypass Vents, Valves, and Other Components

Facility No. of Valves Bypasses‡

Dow Midland 150 0

Formosa Baton Rouge 50 0

Formosa Delaware 235 0

Formosa Point Comforta350 0

Formosa SPVC 400 0

OxyVinyls Deer Park 3,576 0

OxyVinyls Pasadena 6,600 1

141 OxyVinyls Pedricktownb

53 0

PolyOne Henry 167 0

PolyOne Pedricktown 167 0

Shintech Addis 258 0

Shintech Freeport 1128 0

Shintech Plaquemine 167 0

Westlake Calvert City 202 0

Westlake Geismar 369 0

Georgia Gulf Aberdeen 711 0

Georgia Gulf Plaquemine 550 3

TOTAL 15,124 4

Notes:

‡All bypasses were reported to the National Response Center (“NRC”).

*Related to a power loss at the facility.

aValves on closed vent system, including recovery device=350; line from recovery system to thermal

oxidizer=40.

bBleeds and process safety valves=141; Block valves to pressure indicators and transmitter = 53.

It is also worth noting that EPA’s approach to bypasses is not comprehensive. Flow

indicators, which cost prohibitively more than car-seals or key-locks,77 merely detect and

identify that a bypass has occurred, and cannot prevent a bypass. Conversely, car-seals and keylocks are intended to prevent the diversion of a vent stream, but cannot detect, prevent, or

identify a bypass should one inadvertently occur or result from intentional maintenance

activities. Nor has EPA demonstrated a need for such burdensome requirements, particularly

given the regularity with which certain valves and other components must be opened during

normal operations. As Table 5 indicates, there have been only four bypasses from PVC

facilities over the past five years.

D. EPA Failed to Consider Equipment and Procedures Currently in Place to

Address Bypasses

EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it refused to consider the effectiveness of

systems currently in place at PVC facilities to monitor and notify operators about the occurrence

and locations of bypasses. All PVC facilities are required to have an extensive ambient air area

monitoring system that ensures that vinyl chloride releases are detected expeditiously.78 As EPA

has recognized elsewhere, vinyl chloride is the best substance for this purpose because of its

prevalence throughout the process.79

77 Id. at 6 (Table 5). In its Uniform Standards rulemaking, the Agency assumed the cost to be one-half of the

purchased equipment cost of the gas phase flow meter, or $900, with a total capital investment of $3,150 and a total

annualized cost of $3,300.

78 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(b)(8)(i).

79 77 Fed. Reg. 22,885, supra text at note 49.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

28

A typical ambient air area monitoring system at a PVC facility will use two or more gas

chromatographs or mass spectrometers connected to multiple emission detection points set at

various locations throughout the facility. These points are connected by sample tubes back to

each monitor, which in turn analyzes the sampled stream and transmits the readings in real-time

to a control room. The monitors cannot read all the emission points simultaneously and thus will

cycle from point to point. The amount of time it takes the monitor to cycle through all of its

assigned points once is the “Analysis Cycle Time,” and represents the longest amount of time it

will take for the system to detect a release at the action level.

Table 6: Ambient Area Air Monitoring Systems

Company & Facility No. of Monitors

and Type No. of Points Action Level(potential leak)

Analysis Cycle

Time

Dow Midland 2 GCs 30 1 ppm for personnel areas,

5 ppm for processing areas 10-20 min.

Formosa Baton Rouge 2 GCs 41 5 ppm VCM or greater 20 min.

Formosa Delaware 4 GCs 46 1 ppm VCM or greater 20 min.

Formosa Point Comfort 2 Mass Spec 96 5 ppm VCM or greater 30 min.

Formosa SPVC 2 Mass Spec 109 5 ppm VCM or greater 18 min.

OxyVinyls Deer Park 1 Mass Spec 33 5 ppm or > 4x @ 1 ppm 16.5 min.

OxyVinyls Pasadena 6 GCs 120 5 ppm or > 4x @ 1 ppm 15 min.

OxyVinyls Pedricktown 3 GCs 42 5 ppm or > 4x @ 1 ppm 12-15 min.

PolyOne Henry 2 Mass Spec 38 > 1 ppm VCM or greater 6 min.

PolyOne Pedricktown 2 GCs 20 > 1 ppm VCM or greater 10 min.

Shintech Addis 7 GCs 101 5 ppm 7.5 min.

Shintech Freeport 15 GCs 216 5 ppm 7.5 min.

Shintech Plaquemine 7 GCs 101 5 ppm 7.5 min.

Westlake Calvert City 6 GCs 57

3 consecutive readings from

the same point at > 10 ppm

VCM

10 min.

Westlake Geismar 2 GCs 40 > 1 ppm for personnel areas,

> 5 ppm for process areas 30 min.

Georgia Gulf Aberdeen 5 GCs 50 5 ppm 10 min.

Georgia Gulf Plaquemine 3 GCs 43 5 ppm 22.5 min.

The action level ranges from 1 ppm to 10 ppm vinyl chloride, and is a function of the

number of points, size of the facility, and the sensitivity of the equipment. The system

automatically triggers an alarm in the control room once it detects any vinyl chloride above the

action level. The control room monitor provides information on the concentration of vinyl

chloride, the general location of the detection point, date, and time. PVC facilities use various

methods to pinpoint releases detected by their ambient air area monitoring systems. Some

facilities have alarm lights near the detection point that begin to flash as an aid for personnel

looking for the release or leak. Others use audio, visual, or olfactory (“AVO”) detectors to

pinpoint the source of the alarm. Still others use hand-held devices near the detection point to

identify the source of a leak or release.

Detection points are located at high and low locations around the facility. Thus, it is

unlikely that the ambient air area monitoring systems would fail to detect any bypass. Yet, EPA

insists that flow indicators, car-seals, or key and locks be installed to ensure that bypasses do not

occur at PVC facilities,80 or if they do, that they are identified and addressed immediately. It is

not possible to verify this assumption from the administrative record, however, because (1) EPA

did not perform the analysis; and (2) the Agency did not consider the effectiveness of existing

80 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-25 to 10-26.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

29

practices at PVC facilities that are intended to prevent bypasses or detect them within minutes.

Accordingly, the Agency has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Clean Air Act that

these beyond-the-floor requirements are achievable, and reconsideration of these measures is

warranted.

VI. Pressure Relief Device Requirements are not Achievable and Must be Reconsidered

As with the bypass provisions, EPA had no basis for finding that certain requirements

applicable to PRDs are achievable in accordance with the Act. Under the PVC MACT, PRDs

that discharge directly to the atmosphere must be equipped with release indicators and an alert

system that will notify an operator immediately and automatically when the pressure relief

device is open.81 EPA estimated that each facility would incur capital costs of $188,900 and

annual costs of $26,900 to implement this requirement, based on a heavily discounted per PRD

cost of $1,410.82 According to EPA, the release indicators are necessary because:

Release events from PRD have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP, and

a large number of these releases that may occur may not be identified and

controlled in a timely manner, and may be due to repeat problems that have not

been corrected. In the final rule, PRD are required to be equipped with indicators

to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release. The

requirement to install indicators to identify and record the time and duration of

each pressure release is a compliance requirement to ensure the PRD

requirements in the final rule are met. They help ensure that any PRD discharge,

i.e., a release of uncontrolled HAP emissions, is immediately known to the source

operator and recorded for future consideration by the facility or regulatory

authority, so that remedial or preventative action can be taken to minimize or

avoid PRD discharges in the future.83

During the comment period, the Working Group demonstrated that release indicators

were unnecessary for PRDs because multiple systems and procedures already are in place at

PVC facilities to perform the function of identification and operator notification. Some of these

include extensive electronic monitoring of process and equipment pressures with multi-stage

alarms (high and high-high) continuously monitored by operators located in control rooms,

operators working in the process areas with the ability to both visually and audibly detect PRD

operation, and VCM monitoring systems designed to detect releases and the area of the plant in

which they are located.

We acknowledge, based on information from the commenters, that the PVC

industry typically installs area monitors in addition to rupture discs in series with

relief valves. We also acknowledge other commenters’ statements that multiple

systems and procedures exist to detect and remedy releases from PRD, although

they did not identify specific systems or procedures for the EPA to consider.

However, the commenters did not suggest that the EPA adopt any type of

81 40 C.F.R. § 63.11915(c)(1).

82 77 Fed. Reg. 22,893.

83 77 Fed. Reg. 22,882 (emphasis added).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

30

monitoring or recordkeeping requirement for PRD discharges, and commenters’

statements taken as a whole do not support a conclusion that all PVC facilities

currently install and use effective means to detect and record PRD discharges for

all of their PRD.84

The preceding statements illustrate the errors in the Agency’s PRD approach. EPA may

not propose and dispose on the basis of vague concerns, while holding industry to a more

stringent standard in refutation. In promulgating its regulations, EPA is required to examine and

take a “hard look” at the available data to ensure that a “rational connection” exists between the

facts and the regulatory solution chosen by the Agency.85 EPA did not ask for, nor did it

receive, PRD information from industry, because it specifically instructed in the Section

114 Survey, Form K-1-b, that industry not include any pressure relief data.

86 Nor does it

appear that EPA examined the data from any other source concerning the extent, frequency, and

length of PRD releases for its own decisionmaking. It goes without saying that EPA did not

provide such data to the public for review and comment on the relevance and adequacy of such

data as the basis for informed and reasoned rulemaking. Yet EPA requires the PVC industry,

which reasonably should need only point the Agency to its own records, to do more. This is the

essence of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.

Second, the data clearly shows that the Agency’s concerns over PRD releases from the

PVC industry are unfounded. The release indicator requirement is a solution in search of a

problem. Even assuming that enhanced notification of PRD releases is warranted, nothing in the

record suggests that release indicators will perform this function more effectively than the

systems and procedures currently in use at PVC facilities. Indeed, EPA acknowledged that the

requirement would provide zero net environmental benefit.87 Accordingly, the Agency has failed

to demonstrate that the installation of PRD release indicators, taking into consideration cost and

other factors, is achievable, and must reconsider this requirement.

A. PRD Releases From the PVC Industry are Infrequent, of Short Duration, and

Release Minimal Amounts of HAP

The PVC industry did not suggest that EPA adopt any reporting or recordkeeping

requirements concerning PRD discharges because the Working Group pointed to such existing

requirements in its comments on the proposed rule. Specifically, the Working Group noted that

vinyl chloride releases are subject to a one-pound reportable quantity (“RQ”) under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) regulations.88 Given this

84 77 Fed. Reg. 22,881.

85 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43 (1983); Small Ref. Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d

506, 520, 531 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

86 Indeed, in Form F of the survey, EPA requested information on all process startup, shutdown, and malfunctions,

and specificed that emergency/safety relief events are not considered malfunctions.

87 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0195, at 17, Memorandum from Eastern Research Group to

Jodi Howard, EPA, Subject: Revised Costs and Emission Reductions for Major Sources in the Polyvinyl

Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category.

88 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868-0146, at 99; see also 40 C.F.R. § 302.4; 40 C.F.R. § 372.65.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

31

low threshold and the pressures typically involved in PRD releases, the procedure at PVC

facilities is to report any PRD release of VCM to the National Response Center operated by the

U.S. Coast Guard as a release, and to provide a correction should the amount of the release prove

to be below the threshold. Details of the release also must be reported within 10 days to the EPA

Administrator.89 These reports on incidents also are reported in the quarterly compliance report

to the Agency. Accordingly, EPA has a comprehensive database of information with which to

assess the extent and scope of PRD releases within the industry.

Nowhere in the docket, however, does the Agency review or summarize PRD releases by

the PVC industry, assess the quantity of HAPs released, or review current industry measures to

address these releases. The Working Group made this very point at its June 30, 2011 meeting

with EPA. We pointed out that given the additional data collection on other matters, there

simply was not enough time to collect and aggregate this information before the close of the

comment period, but that it was readily accessible by EPA from its own records. Agency staff

demurred, suggesting that there was widespread non-compliance with the PRD release

prohibition and the reporting requirements within the PVC industry.

As indicated above, members of the PVC industry have long been required by law to

provide timely and accurate reports of PRD releases under both the VCM NESHAP and

CERCLA. Failure to do so is a significant offence subject to serious consequences including

possible criminal prosecution. In addition, the Agency has several investigative and analytical

tools at its disposal, specifically the Section 114 Request, which it could have used to better

understand this issue, but chose not to. The Agency also could have laid out its non-compliance

concerns in the preamble to the proposed rule, and requested data either supporting or

contradicting the view that PRD releases are widespread. It did neither and simply decided,

without reasoned analysis, that release indicators are needed to identify otherwise supposedly

unknown releases.

The industry has since been able to collect preliminary information spanning the past

three years from 17 Working Group member facilities. The data, which is summarized at Table

7, includes the number of PRDs at each facility, the total number of releases over the past three

years, and the number of releases reported to the National Response Center (“NRC”).

Table 7: Pressure Relief Devices and Releases Reported Over the Past Three years

Company & Facility Number of PRDs Number of Releases

(last 3 years)

Number of Releases

Reported to NRC

Dow Midland 112 0 0

Formosa Baton Rouge 175 0 0

Formosa Delaware 39 0 0

Formosa Point Comfort 92 0 0

Formosa SPVC 95 1 1

OxyVinyls Deer Park 72 0 0

OxyVinyls Pasadena 426 0 0

OxyVinyls Pedricktown 39 0 0

PolyOne Henry 125 1 1

PolyOne Pedricktown 127 0 0

Shintech Addis 91 0 0

Shintech Freeport 256 0 0

Shintech Plaquemine 57 0 0

89 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(a).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

32

Table 7: Pressure Relief Devices and Releases Reported Over the Past Three years

Company & Facility Number of PRDs Number of Releases

(last 3 years)

Number of Releases

Reported to NRC

Westlake Calvert City 130 0 0

Westlake Geismar 50 0 0

Georgia Gulf Aberdeen 109 3 3

Georgia Gulf Plaquemine 139 9 9

TOTALS 2134 14 14

There are over 2,134 PRDs in service at these 17 Working Group member facilities.

Clearly, PRD releases from PVC facilities to the atmosphere are demonstrably infrequent. There

have been only 14 releases from a total of 2,134 PRDs in the past three years. All releases were

reported to the NRC and to EPA, regardless of whether the releases exceed the one-pound RQ.

Based on current performance, additional PRD regulation is not justified.

B. All PVC Facilities Have Installed and use Effective Means to Promptly Detect

and Record PRD Discharges for all of Their PRDs

It should not be surprising that there are very few releases across the industry. PRDs are

a last line of defense to bring a high pressure situation under control after a multi-layered system

of primary, secondary, and even tertiary monitoring and alarms, coupled with response

components and processes has failed. These processes include emergency polymerization

termination agents, emergency cooling systems, back-up power generation, and venting to

control systems. At each of these steps, there are indicators and high pressure alarms to notify

the facility operator immediately.

Every polymerization reactor is equipped with pressure transmitters that continuously

monitor reactor pressure and alarm at preset high pressure and high-high pressure points

designed to allow for multiple corrective actions before any release to a pressure relief device

could occur. These alarms must be addressed as they typically indicate a process or equipment

issue that must be resolved expeditiously in order to maintain normal operating condition

parameters essential to producing within-specification products. Because PRDs can only lift at

the pressure trigger, the PRD cannot activate if all operating parameters are in nominal ranges.

Computer monitoring of pressure trends is performed continuously so that even before a highpressure alarm, the operator is aware of changing pressure conditions. Some reactors are

equipped with hydroful pressure relief tanks to relieve any hydroful situations to prevent a

release.

First and foremost, it is in every operator’s interest to monitor the polymerization process

in order to prevent a run-away reaction that can have catastrophic consequences for people and

property. When the intervention measures discussed above are not sufficient, the temporary

lifting of a PRD to relieve pressure provides an overwhelmingly useful mitigation tool with

minimal consequences, from a safety standpoint. Yet even a brief lift with minor emissions is

highly undesirable because it likely will result in a costly off-spec product batch.

According to preliminary information collected from Working Group members, unless

safety considerations required a delay, facility personnel generally detected, identified, and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

33

responded to PRD releases within one to 15 minutes. The rapidity of the response also ensures

that the quantity of HAPs released to the atmosphere is limited. Most significantly, PRDs are

designed to automatically close – thus stopping the release – as soon as the reactor pressure has

subsided. EPA’s new requirement for release indicators and alert systems will do absolutely

nothing to enhance, nor accelerate, the effectiveness of this existing protective measure.

Every PVC facility is required to have in place a plan for programmed maintenance of

every relief valve in accordance with the CAA § 112(r) risk management plan requirements and

the Occupational Safety and Health Act process safety management regulations at 29 C.F.R.

§ 1910.119. For example, relief valves at PolyOne’s Pedricktown facility are changed out and

rebuilt every five years. Many valves that are in contact with multi-phased material, e.g., liquids,

gases, and solids, have a rupture disk beneath the PRD. All rupture disks (“RD”) are on some

type of change out frequency depending on service. The frequency ranges from every six

months to two years depending on the vessel. For example, at the PolyOne Henry plant, PRDs in

vinyl service are tested annually if there is no RD below the PRD, and every two years if a RD is

present. The PRDs are rebuilt if mechanical testing indicates that the PRD either will not operate

at the set pressure trigger, or operates too soon. Both PolyOne plants rebuild or replace any PRD

that lifted due to an over pressure incident.

In addition to the multi-layer parametric and detection and warning systems discussed

above, all PVC facilities utilize their ambient air area monitoring system, as described in section

V.D., to ensure that vinyl chloride releases are detected expeditiously. Vinyl chloride is the best

substance for this purpose because of its prevalence throughout the process.

The agency has not identified any inadequacies in the existing, redundant system of

monitoring and alarms to prevent PRDs. Indeed, actual event data during years of operation

validates the adequacy of current controls.

C. EPA’s Release Indicators Provide no Added Benefit to Current Industry Release

Detection Methods at a Burdensome Cost

During the comment period, the Working Group noted that EPA’s cost estimates for

installation of PRD release indicators were significantly lower than is likely, and provided

estimates demonstrating that the actual capital costs would exceed $1,000,000 per facility. EPA,

however, did not find these estimates to be sufficiently detailed and instead used data developed

by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”).90 One fundamental error in

EPA’s approach, however, was its use of the so-called “Six-Tenths Rule” to account for

economies of scale.

EPA used a base cost of $10,000 per PRD to install wireless monitoring, which is

equivalent to the high end of the cost range provided by the SCAQMD.91 The SCAQMD

analysis, which did not use the Six-Tenths Rule in its cost estimate, noted that “[d]ata provided

by wireless industry representatives and a refinery that has installed ten electronic monitoring

90 Id.

91 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0195, and associated calculation spreadsheet, Docket

Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0199.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

34

devices has indicated that the unit device cost ranged from $5,000 to $10,000 which includes

device parts, installation and maintenance.”92 In addition, the SCAQMD staff determined that

the total cost to purchase and install electronic monitoring devices for 657 PRDs (565 in

gas/vapor service – 10 already installed by one facility + 102 in liquid service) was estimated to

range from $3.3 million to $6.6 million. Annual operating costs were deemed to be minimal

because they included periodic replacement of inexpensive batteries.

Based on a review of actual quotations for PRD monitoring systems, the Working Group

does not object to the SCAQMD estimate of $5,000 to $10,000 per indicator. Our preliminary

research indicates that the per PRD cost will depend on the system’s capabilities, and at least one

member’s detailed assessment suggests that the per PRD figure is significantly higher.

Nevertheless, it is clear that EPA’s application of the Six-Tenths Rule was unreasonable.

Assuming that a single PRD monitor at a PVC facility would cost $10,000, the Agency adjusted

that amount to account for economies of scale or volume discounts. Since the model PVC

facility used for the cost estimate would need 134 PRD release indicators, EPA, instead of

applying some reasonable percent discount to $1,340,000 (the cost of 134 PRD monitors at

$10,000 each), incorrectly applied the Six-Tenths Rule to determine the volume discount.

The Six-Tenths Rule is meant to characterize the relationship between the cost and the

size of a manufacturing facility. As size increases, cost increases by an exponent of six-tenths.

This rule is typically applied when scaling equipment costs.93 For example, if we know that the

cost of a piece of equipment is $10,000 for size X, we can use the Six-Tenths Rule to scale the

cost of that piece of equipment to size Y. The Six-Tenths Rule reasonably would apply to PRD

release indicators if it was known that a particular size of indicator cost $10,000 and a model

facility needed to scale the cost to a different size of indicator. It is not appropriate, however, to

scale the cost of one indicator to determine the per unit cost of 134 indicators.

Using the Six-Tenths Rule in this incorrect manner, EPA concluded that PRD indicators

at PVC facilities would cost $1,410, or an 86% discount from the $10,000 unit price for each

PRD.94 No significant leap or analysis is required to recognize and understand that an 86%

discount is beyond optimistic; it is unrealistic. Indeed, the SCAQMD did not apply any

discounting factor to its estimate,95 so it is unclear why EPA chose to, nor does the Agency

provide a reasoned or reasonable analysis for this assumption.

The SCAQMD analysis is instructive for another reason. The SCAQMD determined that

based on a cost per indicator of $5,000 to $10,000 per device, the cost of installing 657 PRDs

was $3.3 million to $6.6 million. As a check on the South Coast estimate, Working Group

92 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Final Staff Report For Proposed Amended Rule 1173 - Control of

Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants.”

May 15, 2007.

93 See EPA, Economic Impact Analysis (EIA): Small Municipal Waste Combustors-Emissions Guidelines and New

Source Performance Standards, p. 10 EPA-452/R-00-001 (May 2000).

94 See, e.g., spreadsheet included in Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0199, Tab: PRD Wireless

Monitoring, Cell: C5.

95 South Coast supra note 92, at 6-4.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

35

members sought out their own cost estimate for wireless PRD pressure transmitters. The model

plant was Westlake’s Geismar, LA facility which has 50 PRDs.

Westlake estimates the cost for piping modifications to the annular space between the

rupture disk and the PRD and to install each transmitter to be approximately $2,000, and when

applied to 50 PRDs, the installation cost is projected to amount to $100,000. Westlake received

quotes for 50 wireless pressure transmitters and power supplies, two wireless device managers,

and two wireless field access devices from Honeywell that totals $175,384, which is included as

Exhibit VIIIa. In addition, Westlake received a cost estimate from Champion Technology

Services for $6,800 for Honeywell’s OPT Tunneler software and programming to tie the

transmitted signal into the control room, which is included as Exhibit VIIIb. The total cost for

the installation at Westlake Geismar’s facility would be $100,000 + $175,384 + $6,800 =

$282,184, a cost per PRD of $5,643.

In short, the Westlake test case indicates that EPA underestimated the real world cost of

complying with the PRD requirement by close to a factor of four. It is important to note that the

transmitters used for the Westlake estimate are less expensive, but arguably less accurate than lift

indicators. Specifically, EPA is requiring facilities to install “a release indicator on each PRD

that would be able to identify and record the time and duration of each pressure release and

notify operators that a pressure release has occurred.”96 The pressure transmitters evaluated by

Westlake measure the pressure in the annular space between the rupture disc and the relief valve.

Theoretically, a facility should be able to determine when a release occurs and when it stops,

solely by measuring the annular space pressure. Lift indicators, in contrast, measure the

displacement of the stem on the seat of the valve, and are an accurate recording of the time and

duration of any movement of the valve seat itself. The Working Group assumed that pressure

transmitters would be an acceptable alternative to lift indicators as not every relief valve can be

fitted with one. To do so would be a very expensive undertaking that would require the industry

to replace or retrofit the valves to incorporate the lift indicator technology. If this was EPA’s

intent, then the actual costs to comply with the Agency’s requirement are likely significantly

higher than the Westlake test case.

In addition, some Working Group members have expressed concerns about the viability

of wireless technology in certain applications. For example, the use of a battery to power the

transmitters adds additional maintenance costs and complexity, particularly in areas where safety

considerations are paramount. There also continue to be concerns about the proprietary nature

and lack of interchangeability of many of the systems currently on the market. Constantly

changing and upgrading standards also present a problem particularly with regards to

replacement and spare components. In addition, the well-documented security issues associated

with wireless technology, as well as the possibility that wireless transmissions may interfere with

other sensitive instruments, means that wired systems may be the only option for certain

facilities. As the spreadsheets at Exhibit VIIIc indicate, the cost for a hard-wired system can be

significantly more expensive, ranging from $19,000 per PRD for a system that did not require an

additional junction box, to $35,000 per PRD for a system with an additional junction box.

96 77 Fed. Reg. 22,860.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

36

As the requirement to install PRD release indicators over current detection and

notification systems in use in the PVC industry is a beyond-the-floor requirement, EPA is

required to take “into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction.” The Agency

has itself recognized that this requirement will result in no emission reductions,97 and the

Working Group has already established that existing systems and procedures in place to prevent

the releases (e.g., short stop addition to reactors) for some vessels and for the remaining PRDs

are able to provide near real-time detection and notification. Accordingly, the Agency has failed

to demonstrate that the requirement is necessary or achievable, taking costs and other factors into

consideration as required by the Act.

VII. EPA Should Reconsider and Allow Leak Detection and Repair of Pressure Vessels

Under Section 63.11910(c) of the final PVC MACT, pressure vessels must be operated as

a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere. In addition, potential leak interfaces on

pressure vessels must be monitored annually for leaks using the LDAR procedures specified in

Section 63.11915.98 The problem here is that Section 63.11910(c)(4) makes any discharge from

a pressure vessel closure device to the atmosphere a violation of the PVC MACT, without first

providing an opportunity to fix the leak. During the rulemaking, the Working Group requested

that, like other equipment, pressure vessels should be covered by all the LDAR provisions,

including the ability to delay repair, such that these leaks are not automatic violations.

According to EPA, however:

Since pressure vessels are defined to not vent to the atmosphere, this inherently

makes them different from other storage vessels, such as fixed roof storage vessels

that are designed to vent with diurnal temperature changes. We believe that

because pressure vessels are designed to not vent to the atmosphere and with no

detectable emissions, a leak (i.e., above 500 ppm background) from one would be

inconsistent with the definition of a pressure vessel, and hence a violation of the

rule.

99

Pursuant to Section 63.11890(d), leaks from pressure vessel closure devices are

categorized as “deviations,” not “malfunctions.” Malfunctions are defined in part as “any

sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure...of process equipment.”100 EPA

appears to be taking the position that leaks from closure devices are preventable, and thus may

not benefit from the affirmative defense provision of the rule, but nowhere in the record does the

Agency explain why or expand on the basis for these requirements. At the April 18, 2012

meeting with industry, EPA staff indicated that no repair option was set as the floor because the

Agency had no data demonstrating that leaks do occur on pressure vessel interfaces, or that the

industry was dealing with such leaks pursuant to one of the Agency’s prescribed LDAR

programs.

97 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0195, at 17.

98 40 C.F.R. § 63.11910(c)(3).

99 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 12-61.

100 40 C.F.R. § 63.2.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

37

A. LDAR is the Common Approach for Dealing With Leaks From Pressure Vessels

Based on the plain language of the final PVC MACT rule, it would appear that EPA

differentiates between leaks from closure devices and other potential “leak interfaces.” EPA

does not define “leak interface” in the final rule, but rather points to paragraph 8.3 of Method 21

at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, appendix A-7. As EPA notes, a potential leak interface is “a location where

organic vapor leakage could occur,”101 and Method 21 identifies several such sources, but only

leaks from closure devices have been deemed a deviation at 63.11890(d) and a violation at

63.11910 (c)(4) by EPA under the PVC MACT. We note that welds, pressure vessel surfaces,

and other components on pressure vessels can also leak. The Working Group assumes that leaks

from such locations can be dealt with through the LDAR program, but the Agency has not

defined what constitutes a “closure device,” and nowhere does the regulatory text or any of the

background documents state so expressly.

Perhaps EPA believes that closure devices present the highest likelihood of a leak

because they are vulnerable to improper operation or operator error. Or, the Agency may have

data on hand from other industries indicating that closure devices are the greatest source of leaks

from pressure vessels. Another possibility is that lacking any information on closure devicerelated leaks, the Agency conducted a risk assessment and determined that they present the

highest risk of a leak. The problem is that nothing in the rule or the rulemaking record provides

any information on why EPA singles out closure devices or the concern the Agency has with

these devices to warrant such special focus. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether

the Agency’s approach is reasonable or comports with the requirements of the Act.

EPA’s approach to pressure vessels currently creates a regulatory conundrum. The final

PVC MACT rule does not define the term “closure device,” but the term has been defined in the

Part 63, subpart DD regulations to include valves and other fittings.102 Critically, valves also are

included in the definition of “equipment,” and thus, the industry clearly has an opportunity to

repair leaks from valves under the final PVC MACT’s LDAR provisions before a violation

ensues.103 The effectiveness and fundamental performance characteristics of a valve are the

same whether used on a pressure vessel or elsewhere. Thus, either EPA intends to allow the

repair of leaks from all valves at PVC facilities, but not hatches or lids, or the Agency has

arbitrarily and incomprehensibly chosen pressure vessel closure devices as the dividing line

between what constitutes a repairable leak and a violation. Indeed, based on the Working

Group’s long experience with pressure vessels, and as discussed in the next section, not only do

closure devices and other components of pressure vessels leak under normal operating

conditions, they can present significantly greater logistical issues to repair, which warrant use of

LDAR procedures.

101 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 12-63.

102 See 40 C.F.R. § 63.681. The Working Group notes that, as a general matter, each MACT standard should stand

on its own, and constant cross-referencing to other, non-applicable MACTs for critical definitions, only complicates

the task of compliance.

103 77 Fed. Reg. 22,911 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11915).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

38

B. Using LDAR on Pressure Vessel Leaks is the Only Achievable Approach

Section 112(h) of the Act provides that “if it is not feasible in the judgment of the

Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . the Administrator may, in lieu

thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.”104 The Agency

must first make a determination that HAPs “cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed

and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a

conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or local law.” The Working Group

submits that fugitive leaks from pressure vessels such as spheres are specifically the types of

emissions that cannot be routed to a control device and should be subjected to the LDAR

provisions.

This principle applies equally to leaks from closure devices as from other potential leak

interfaces. The primary consideration is that given the size of a pressure vessel, and other

considerations, such as internal pressure, and emptying and clearing the vessel, it may not be

possible to immediately stop a leak from a closure device without emptying the vessel—a

process which can take several days. For example, typical spheres at PVC facilities range from

5,000 to 10,000 barrels in capacity, and generally take approximately three to four weeks to

evacuate before personnel can safely enter and affect repairs.

A case in point involved a leaking flange from a 225,000-gallon vessel with a 24”

manway on top of the vessel. The manway flange is included in the facility’s LDAR program

and monitored on a quarterly basis. On April 19, 2010, a 525 ppm leak was detected at the

flange of the sphere manway. A first attempt to stop the leak was attempted by tightening the

flange bolts, but this actually made the leak worse, resulting in an increased reading of 639 ppm.

A second attempt resulted in an even greater increase in the leak from 639 to 1,771 ppm.

Repairs had to be delayed so that the facility could consult with an outside expert and evaluate

how best to resolve the leak in light of the significant increase after the initial repair attempt.

In consultation with the contractor, it was determined that a temporary clamp would be

needed to control the leak until the next planned outage and scheduled vessel inspection. The

installation of a temporary clamp is not a minor engineering matter and requires the development

of engineered calculations, drawings, extensive evaluation for approval, Management of Change

process, safety and environmental assessment, fabrication of the clamp, and a new chemical

approval for the sealant. Ultimately, the temporary clamp was engineered, fabricated, installed,

and the leak stopped within 15 days of placing the sphere manway on Delay of Repair. It was

calculated that about 10.1 lbs of vinyl chloride was released during the time required to repair the

sphere, which is similar to leaks from any other equipment at the facility that is subject to the

LDAR monitoring program.

Application of LDAR, coupled with prompt repair, is both the MACT floor and reflective

of best practices for minimizing emissions from pressure vessels. EPA has no basis for requiring

otherwise and reconsideration must be granted.

104 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(1); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 883.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

39

VIII. Vapor Balancing

A. Vapor Balancing is Widely Used in This Source Category

As Table 8 indicates, vapor balancing is used widely throughout the industry to load

storage vessels and unload transportation vehicles (e.g., railcar). Indeed, it is virtually

impossible to unload a vinyl chloride railcar without any HAP emissions without using vapor

balancing. When unloading a vinyl chloride railcar, there are two options for loading a storage

vessel: (1) use vinyl chloride pressure to push vinyl chloride into the storage sphere and vapor

balance the sphere back to the railcar; or (2) use nitrogen pressure to push vinyl chloride to the

storage sphere and send the vapors to the control device. The second option results in low-level

HAP emissions through the control device. In contrast, when using vapor balancing, vapors

from the railcar, the sphere, and the lines are recovered, thus ensuring there are no HAP

emissions from the process. Accordingly, the Working Group submits that EPA should

reconsider and expressly allow the ongoing use of vapor balancing at PVC facilities.

Table 8: PVC Industry Use of Vapor Balancing

Facility Reported Practice of Vapor Balancing

Dow Midland Yes

Formosa Baton Rouge Yes

Formosa Delaware Yes

Formosa Point Comfort Yes

Formosa SPVC No

OxyVinyls Deer Park No

OxyVinyls Pasadena No

OxyVinyls Pedricktown No

PolyOne Henry No

PolyOne Pedricktown No

Shintech Addis Yes

Shintech Freeport Yes

Shintech Plaquemine Yes

Westlake Calvert City Yes

Westlake Geismar Yes

Georgia Gulf Aberdeen Yes

Georgia Gulf Plaquemine Yes

B. Vapor Balancing is a Proven Control Technology

As the industry noted in its comments, vapor balancing is a proven control technology

that EPA has allowed as a control option for storage tanks in many other MACT rules, including

the Agency’s recently proposed Uniform Standards.105 Although vapor balancing is not

addressed in the final PVC MACT rule, the Working Group submits that vapor balancing is not

prohibited by the final rule, particularly as no emissions are released from the practice.

Nevertheless, both industry and the Agency would benefit from a common and consistent

understanding of the practice through explicit regulatory recognition. In addition, its widespread

use throughout the industry would make compliance and enforcement of vapor balancing as a

Section 6.36(g) alternative means of emission limitation impracticable, further elevating the need

for correction on reconsideration.

105 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146, at 87.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

40

C. Vapor Balancing Should be Explicitly Recognized in the Rule

In their comments, Working Group members requested that EPA allow vapor balancing

as a means of controlling emissions from storage vessels. The final PVC MACT rule is silent on

the issue, and according to EPA, it did not have data on the appropriateness of using vapor

balancing on storage vessels in the PVC source category.106 A Working Group member raised

this issue with the Agency at their April 18, 2012 meeting, and reminded the EPA staff that

vapor balancing is a widespread activity throughout the industry. Under the circumstances of a

widely used and proven control technology that is fundamental to avoiding emissions during

normal operations, such as railcar loading, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the Agency

not to exercise its discretion, grant reconsideration, and add a provision in the PVC MACT that

explicitly allows vapor balancing.

IX. Requirements for Combined Process Vents Must be Reconsidered

Several PVC production facilities share process vent and other control devices with

facilities in other source categories, including facilities that are in the ethylene dichloride and/or

vinyl chloride (“EDC/VCM”) production industry or subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP

(“HON”) or Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (“MON”). During the development of the PVC

MACT, several EDC/VCM manufacturers, many of which also are subject to the PVC MACT,

received a Section 114 Request from EPA for survey and test data to support the development of

an EDC/VCM MACT rule. Given this ongoing and clearly overlapping initiative, the Working

Group urged EPA to postpone development of the PVC MACT in favor of a consolidated rule

covering PVC, EDC, and VCM facilities, or two rules that are consistent. In separately filed

comments, a Working Group member maintained that EPA should allow compliance with the

MON/HON if greater than 50 percent of the HAP flow is from a MON/HON-regulated facility.

Another Working Group member recommended that EPA set process vent limits for combined

flow control devices based on weighted average flow volumes.

A. It was Not Feasible to Comment on the New Data on Which EPA Based the Final

Rule Requirements for Combined Process Vents

In the proposed PVC MACT rule, EPA did not differentiate between PVC-only and

PVC-combined process vents in setting emission limits. In the final rule, however, EPA

promulgated separate emission limits for PVC-only process vents and PVC-combined process

vents. The emission limits for combined process vents were a surprise to the PVC industry

because the limits are based on EDC/VCM data developed for purposes of the EDC/VCM

Section 114 Request and rulemaking. Indeed, EDC/VCM sampling was not completed until well

after the close of the PVC MACT comment period, and the data was not placed in the docket

until January 25, 2012, less than three weeks before the Administrator signed the final PVC

MACT rule. Accordingly, it was impracticable for the Working Group to review and comment

upon EPA’s treatment of the EDC/VCM data before publication of the final PVC MACT rule.

106 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 12-65.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

41

B. The Applicable Scope of the Combined Process Vent Provision Merits

Reconsideration Based on the Conflict Between the Preamble Explanation and

the Language of the Final Rule

As the D.C. Circuit noted in Portland Cement Association v. EPA,

107 the Agency has an

obligation to “acknowledge and account for a changed regulatory posture the agency creates—

especially when the change impacts a contemporaneous and closely related rulemaking.”108

Notwithstanding the clear basis for mandatory reconsideration of the combined process vent

emissions limitations, the Working Group’s concern here is focused on the applicability of the

combined process vent limitation to facilities outside the PVC source category. Specifically,

Section 63.11865 of the rule expressly states that the PVC MACT does not apply to chemical

manufacturing process units that produce VCM or other raw materials used to produce PVC. In

contrast, the preamble to the final PVC MACT indicates that facilities in a different source

category handling vent streams from multiple facilities must comply with all rules applicable to

their common control device, whether it is the HON, the PVC MACT, or another rule.

According to the Agency:

If an emission point is subject to both the PVC NESHAP and other NESHAP

because emissions from two source categories are vented to the same control

device, both standards apply. Multiple standards applicable to one emission point

for the same pollutant are not necessarily “conflicting” or “inconsistent.” In

some standards, the EPA has allowed compliance with another overlapping

standard where that other overlapping standard was determined to be at least as

stringent...If the EPA were to allow sources to meet the requirements from

overlapping, but potentially less stringent rules in lieu of the PVC standards,

there is the possibility that PVC facilities would not meet the MACT floor based

standards in this rule. Although we recognize that facilities may be subject to

different NESHAP regulations, sources are responsible for ensuring that they

comply with all applicable regulations. Many NESHAP regulations provide a

wide variety of compliance options, and, as such, it would be a difficult task to

identify in advance which is the most stringent requirement in each case.109

When Working Group members met with EPA on April 18, 2012, to discuss the final

rule, one critical question raised was the impact of the combined process vent limit on

EDC/VCM and other HON or MON units that may share a control device with a PVC unit. The

staff repeatedly stressed that the most stringent limit would apply, but it was not clear whether

the staff’s focus was only on the PVC side of the equation or whether they intended also for the

HON/MON units to comply with the new PVC MACT limits. This is a critical issue as

HON/MON units currently are not subject to some of the more stringent limits in the PVC

MACT and HON/MON unit operators were not afforded the opportunity to comment on whether

their control devices could meet the process vent and related operating requirements finalized in

the PVC MACT for combined flow.

107 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

108 Id.

109 77 Fed. Reg. 22,869.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

42

It is not a simple matter to parse out “the most stringent” operating requirements between

different units with different operating conditions and different rule requirements. Two

examples illustrate how a shared MACT-affected control device is now subject to new

requirements for which the affected sources with “process vents originating from another source

category” did not have an opportunity to review, comment, and resolve the discrepancies and

conflicts:

1. At 40 C.F.R. § 63.11940(c)(2), the final PVC MACT requires that the following be

installed on required HCl scrubbers: pressure gauges; a temperature monitoring

device at the scrubber gas stream exit; or a specific gravity device. HON does not

require any other monitoring devices (see 40 C.F.R. § 63.114(a)(4)), nor is it clear

that this equipment would be appropriate for control devices generally regulated

under the HON or MON.

2. Taking PVC MACT’s Table 1 and 2 emission limits for Dioxin/Furans (“D/F”) as an

example, Section 63.11925(c)(2) for the final PVC MACT requires affected sources

to establish an operating limit as per Section 63.11880(b). PVC-combined process

vent affected sources must now determine how to comply with this requirement for

the affected source’s PVC operations, along with the process vents from the other

source category (e.g., HON or MON), which do not have D/F limits.

If EPA intended for the HON/MON units to comply with the new PVC MACT limits,

then EPA has erred and violated the admonishment of the Portland Cement court that “it would

certainly be arbitrary, as well as a violation of the CAA itself, for EPA to set one standard based

on data already placed in another source category in light of the mutual exclusivity of the

standards themselves,”110 particularly as none of the facilities in the EDC/VCM source category

have had an opportunity to comment on these limits and the new potentially applicable operating

requirements. Even if the Agency’s approach is permissible, the rule is silent, and the staff has

not addressed to what extent, if any, the most stringent standard extends back to all source

operations (e.g., emission profiles at the process equipment) up to and including operating

parameters for the control device as well as emission limits for the vent discharging to the

atmosphere. Nor has EPA resolved any conflicting provisions.

For these reasons, the final rule should be amended or clarified consistent with the

express language in Section 63.11865.

X. The New Requirements for Emission Profiles are Overbroad and Must be

Reconsidered

Pursuant to Section 63.11925(g) of the final rule, which was not in the proposed rule,

PVC facilities must now “characterize each process vent by developing an emissions profile for

each contributing continuous process vent, miscellaneous vent and batch process vent,” as part of

their initial and continuous compliance demonstrations.111 The emission profile is intended to

110 Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 186.

111 77 Fed. Reg. 22,915 (codfied at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11925(g)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

43

describe the characteristics of the process vent stream under either absolute or hypothetical

worst-case conditions so facilities can demonstrate that “process vent streams are serving a valid

process purpose and are not being diluted prior to control.”112 This new requirement is in

addition to the requirement at Section 63.11945 that an emission profile must be used to

demonstrate that the maximum load is sent to the control device for initial and periodic

compliance testing.

The Agency’s changes to the definitions of process vent, batch process vent, and

continuous process vent, as well as the addition of a new miscellaneous vent category after the

close of the comment period, expanded the emission profile requirement to cover vents not

addressed by the proposed rule. The emission profile requirement under the proposed rule

applied only to batch process vents and was limited to establishing stack testing “worst case

conditions.”113 The final rule not only expands the emission profile requirement, but does so in a

manner that is unnecessary and overly burdensome to the PVC industry.

In other words, the proposed rule would have required only one emission profile at

the inlet of a control device, whereas the final rule requires the development of hundreds of

emission profiles from a PVCPU. The industry did not have an opportunity to comment on the

unworkable new profile requirements. Accordingly, EPA must reconsider the emission profile

requirement for process vents.

A. It was Not Feasible to Comment on the Agency’s New, Much Broader Approach

in the Final Rule to Emission Profiles

EPA initially sought to require emission profiles “for the vent to the control device that

describes the characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device under worst-case

conditions.”114 The final rule, however, requires PVC facilities to develop emission profiles for

“each contributing continuous process vent, miscellaneous vent and batch process vent.”115

In addition, the final rule eliminated, without notice, long-standing exclusions from the

batch process vent and continuous process vent definitions, certain streams the Agency had

determined were de minimis (e.g., analyzer vents, sample emissions) or covered under the LDAR

program or work practice standards and incorporated into the MON upon its reconsideration.

For example, pieces of equipment that are subject to emission limits and work practices for

equipment leaks (e.g., valves, sample connection system) are no longer exempt from the batch

process vent definition. As such, emissions profiles must be developed for such valves and

sampling connections systems under the new characterization requirements of Section

63.11925(g)(1), which apply to batch process vents. Thus, as an initial matter, the Agency’s

compliance focus changed from consideration of the stream at the inlet to the control equipment,

112 77 Fed. Reg. 22,855.

113 76 Fed. Reg. 29,577 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11945(b)(3).

114 77 Fed. Reg. 22,922 (codified at § 63.11945(c)(3)) (emphasis added).

115 77 Fed. Reg. 22,915 (codified at § 63.11925(g)) (emphasis added).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

44

to consideration of data describing the vent stream HAP composition and flow from each of very

many process components and emission points.116

EPA gave no indication in the proposed rule that it intended such an expansive change to

the process vent structure of the PVC MACT, or to terminate the long-standing exclusions for

otherwise regulated streams. Thus, the Working Group had no notice of, or opportunity to

comment on, this new process vent approach, which came as quite a surprise to the PVC

industry.

B. EPA’s Burden Assessment of the Expanded Profile Requirements was Mistaken

In promulgating the final rule, the Agency certainly appeared to envision, incorrectly,

that the emission profile requirement would impose a very limited burden on PVC facilities:

We expect facilities to already have inventories and previous test results available

to develop their emissions profile. All of the facilities that provided information in

response to the August 21, 2009, PVC CAA section 114 survey, developed

emission profiles. Additionally, we are allowing the emissions profile to be based

on engineering assessment or measurement. Because of these reasons, we do not

anticipate additional burden from this requirement.117

Contrary to this analysis, and contrary to the proposed rule, EPA is requiring, without

opportunity for comment, that industry disregard existing emission profiles collected from the

inlet to the control device and is requiring a huge profiling effort for initial and ongoing

compliance. The final regulatory text encompasses a much broader universe of vents to be

profiled, a more comprehensive and, in some cases, impractical testing regime, and much greater

reporting requirements than perhaps the Agency realized.

For example, as the Working Group reads 40 C.F.R. § 63.11985(c)(2), PVC facilities

must submit a batch precompliance report six months before the rule’s compliance date for each

and every vent, and each and every emission episode, associated with that batch process. The

problem is that the Agency’s definition of covered vents appears to encompass apertures,

connections, and other points beyond those to the control device. EPA proposed to define

continuous process vents, in relevant part as “...the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or the

point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream...”118 The final rule, however,

defines “continuous process vent” as:

a vent from a continuous PVCPU operation through which a HAP-containing gas

stream has the potential to be released to the atmosphere except that it is required

by this subpart to [be] routed to a closed vent system and control device...

Emission profiles for batch process vents must be developed through calculations set

forth in 40 C.F.R. § 63.11950. The Administrator must approve any deviations from the listed

116 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0185, at 10-55.

117 77 Fed. Reg. 22,855.

118 76 Fed. Reg. 29,596.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

45

equations. Emission profiles, now apparently including data on flow rate and individual HAP

concentrations, must be determined for continuous process vents by testing via methods not

suited for inprocess pipes, or by engineering assessments. In addition, emission profiles for

miscellaneous vents must be determined through an engineering assessment or testing approved

by the Administrator. No PVC facility has on hand inventories and test results to address each

HAP and flow rate information needed to develop an emission profile for the expanded list of

individual process emission points covered by the final rule. Thus, as currently worded, the

emission profile reporting and recordkeeping burdens are overwhelming.

C. The Revised Definition of Continuous Process Vent is Overbroad, Carries

Unintended Consequences, and Must be Corrected

Working Group members are concerned that by eliminating from the definition of

“continuous process vent” and “batch process vent” any reference to “the point of discharge to

the atmosphere (or point of entry to a control device)” or any other references to discharges to

the atmosphere, that the Agency has significantly expanded the scope of the term. In the absence

of a regulatory definition for the term “vent,” the general and broader meaning of the term as “an

opening for the passage or escape of a liquid, gas or vapor,”119 must apply. Further complicating

the issue, “miscellaneous vents” are subsumed in the definition of “process vents,” meaning that

emissions profiles must be developed for each “gaseous emissions from samples, loading and

unloading lines, slip gauges, process wastewater treatment systems and pressure relief devices

that are routed through a closed vent system to a control device and that are not equipment

leaks.” Minor changes in raw materials can impact process vent stream compositions so that

emission profile calculations appear to be needed and reported every time a change in recipe

takes place. There is an added burden for EPA as well if detailed information on the

composition of raw materials and their decomposition products must be submitted to the Agency,

as such information must be managed as Confidential Business Information.

In addition, individual batch and miscellaneous vent streams from a typical PVC plant

(see Figure 3) flow to a centralized recovery system (often containing a gasholder where gas

stream compositions are mixed and equalized) and then flow as a continuous vent stream to

process condensers where the majority of the vinyl chloride and some of the non-VCM HAP is

recovered and returned to the process for reuse. Most facilities tested the inlet stream to their

control device as part of the Section 114 Request. This data will likely be sufficient with a few

other engineering assumptions to determine the maximum load to the control device for the

compliance tests. Any further calculations upstream of this point, therefore, are of minimal use

with no environmental or regulatory benefit.

XI. Stay of the PVC MACT Pending Reconsideration is Warranted

The Administrator should stay the application of the final PVC MACT rule pending

reconsideration. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act authorize an administrative stay during

reconsideration. Given the errors, textual ambiguities, and regulatory conflicts identified in the

preceding discussions, as well as the resulting impediments to normal operations at PVC

facilities, it would be a manifest injustice for the Agency to proceed without staying the final

119 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 1280 (1988).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Vinyl Institute

Petition for Reconsideration and Request to Stay the Rule Pending Reconsideration

46

rule. Accordingly, the Working Group specifically requests that EPA take all necessary and

appropriate steps to stay and defer the compliance deadlines and other provisions of the PVC

MACT pending outcome of the reconsideration process.

XII. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Administrator must convene a proceeding for

reconsideration of the PVC MACT Rule, stay implementation of the Rule pending

reconsideration, and extend the compliance deadlines applicable to the Rule to reflect the stay

period.
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Description

Exhibit I Oxy Vinyls, LP Memorandum re PVC MACT Survey

Wastewater Stripper Error, dated June 6, 2012

Exhibit II E-mail and Wastewater Data from Barry Christensen, Occidental

Chemical Corporation, for Oxy Vinyls, LP, to Jodi Howard, EPA,

dated September 15, 2010

Exhibit III Data and Calculation Spreadsheets from 13 PVC Facilities for

Wastewater Stripper Discharge Non-Vinyl Chloride TOHAP

Limits

Exhibit IV Process Vent Sampling Flow Rate and Concentration Data for

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0107

Exhibit V PolyOne Concentration Database for Vent Gas Absorbers

Exhibit VI Generalized Procedure to Evacuate and Service a VCM Filter at a

Typical PVC Facility

Exhibit VII PVC MACT Working Group Analysis of Initial and Monthly

Compliance with Car Seal Inspection Requirements

Exhibit VIII Cost-Benefit Analysis for Release Indicators
EXHIBIT I

Oxy Vinyls, LP Memorandum

re PVC MACT Survey Wastewater Stripper Error,

dated June 6, 2012
Page 1 of 2

TO: John Westendorf, Mgr Water & Solid Waste

FROM: Monica Ortega, Process Engineer

DATE: 06/06/2012

SUBJECT: PVC MACT Survey Wastewater Stripper Error

Distribution: Jonathan Witt, PVC Technical Manager; Craig Horak, Production Manager;

Jadie Pryor, Environmental Engineer

This memorandum is in response to your questions concerning certain values EPA used to

calculate the wastewater stripper emissions limits for major and area sources under the PVC

MACT and GACT regulations issued by EPA on April 17, 2012. Specifically, you asked for

information on the source of the numbers reported by OxyChem’s Deer Park PVC facility in

response to EPA’s survey request issued in August 2009 to major sources and in September

2009 to area sources, such as the Deer Park PVC facility.

Form K-3 of the survey requested information on the facility’s process wastewater streams.

Form K-3-b specifically requested HAP and VOC concentration data collected in 2008 for the

process wastewater streams. On Form K-3-b, the Deer Park facility reported a sample

concentration of 0.018 ppmv for Acetaldehyde in the process wastewater streams (Stream ID

#s W-307, W-308 and W-310). We also reported concentrations of 0.065 ppmv for Vinyl

Chloride and 0.4 ppmv for “Other” HAPs (same Stream ID #s).

I was asked by my manager in September 2009 to gather information for preparing the survey

response for the Deer Park PVC facility. I was aware that the facility collected and analyzed

vinyl chloride concentration data at the outlet of the wastewater stripper on a weekly basis, as

part of OxyChem’s process control program and to verify compliance with the Vinyl Chloride

NESHAP regulations. It is the facility’s practice that upon receipt of the analytical results, onsite laboratory personnel are responsible for entering the results into a computer software

program.

In researching whether any additional process wastewater samples had been collected in

2008, I reviewed the facility’s annual 2008 Emissions Inventory (EI) report submitted to the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2009. The EI report included an emissions

data sheet for an emission point identified as “DPS-031 Wastewater Stripper.” I assumed that

the reported data was for the process wastewater stripper. The data sheet reported a

concentration of 18.0 ug/liter for Acetaldehyde (essentially equivalent to 0.018 ppmv). It also

reported concentrations of 64.5 ug/liter for VOC and 400.5 ug/liter Total Non-VCM. I entered

Houston Operations Interoffice Memo

PVC Technical Group
Page 2 of 2

these values onto EPA survey Form K-3-b for the facility’s process wastewater streams, which

was submitted to EPA on March 3, 2010.

After EPA released the final PVC MACT and GACT standards earlier this year, you reviewed

EPA’s background documents for calculating the process wastewater emissions limits. EPA

included the 0.018 Acetaldehyde value in the MACT and GACT floor calculations, but did not

use the VCM or Total Non-VCM values reported by the Deer Park facility. You questioned the

source of the 0.018 number and asked me review the source documents. Upon close

analysis, we discovered that the data in the EI report identified for the “DPS-031 Wastewater

Stripper” was supposed to represent data from a groundwater remediation stripper at the Deer

Park facility, not the process wastewater stripper. The groundwater stripper is located in the

water treatment facility adjacent to the PVC facility and is completely unrelated to the PVC

process wastewater stripper that is regulated by the PVC MACT and GACT standards. This

error was not detected until you asked me to review the source numbers reported in the Deer

Park facility’s survey response after you reviewed EPA’s final wastewater emissions limit

calculations.
EXHIBIT II

E-mail and Wastewater Data from Barry Christensen,

Occidental Chemical Corporation, for Oxy Vinyls, LP, to Jodi

Howard, EPA, dated September 15, 2010
From: Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 6:54 PM

To: Christensen, Barry H.

Subject: Re: Response to More questions regarding PVC test and survey data

Thanks Barry.

************************************************************

Jodi Howard, Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Program Divisions

Coatings and Chemicals Group Mail Code: E143-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-4607 Fax: 919-541-0246

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|<Barry_H._Christensen@oxy.com> |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|<Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov> |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|<John_Westendorf@oxy.com> |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|09/15/2010 07:06 PM |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|Response to More questions regarding PVC test and survey data |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Jodi,

enclosed is a few additional data HAP points on wastewater that we took at the time of our sampling.

The first sheet for our Pasadena plant encompasses

wastewater that has been steam stripped by our onsite wastewater stripper. The second sheet

includes data from our Pedricktown plant that flows directly to the onsite biological wastewater

treatment plant operated by PolyOne. It is separate from the process wastewater with VCM that
flows separately to the onsite PolyOne steam stripper. We can provide the back up outside

laboratory reports should you need them.

Pls let me know of any questions on this data.

Barry Christensen

Occidental Chemical Corp.

Mgr Air Quality

972 404 3209

-----Original Message-----

From: Christensen, Barry H.

Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 3:51 PM

To: 'Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject: RE: Response to More questions regarding PVC test and survey data

Jodi,

in the meeting with VI you mentioned you were not able to locate our 4/21/10 submission. We are

sending another copy to your attention which you should receive tomorrow.

Thanks for meeting with us yesterday. The meeting prompted some thought on a few other items we

can send that may supplement some gaps in information.

(See attached file: OV Wastewater Analytical Data (with MDL values).xls)
Resin Sampling Results for Wastewater Stripper

OxyVinyls, LP

Pasadena, TX

Wastewater Type

Flow Diagram Equipment

No.

Flow Diagram

wastewater Stream

number

Suspension Grade GP, HMW,

LMV* GP, LMW

GP, HMW,

LMW

GP, HMW,

LMW

GP, HMW,

LMW

GP, HMW,

LMW

Date Sampled 12/22/2009 12/29/2009 1/6/2010 1/12/2010 1/19/2010 1/28/2010

Date Received by Lab 12/24/2009 12/31/2009 1/8/2010 1/14/2010 1/21/2010 1/30/2010

Lab Report Number JA35458 JA35466 JA35476 JA35488 JA35502 JA36409

Compound CAS No. Method of Analysis

Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 DAI by GC/MS 8260 SIM ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120)

Benzene 71-43-2 SW846 8260 B ND(1.2) ND(1.2) ND(4.7) ND(12) ND(1.2) ND(59)

Chloroethane 75-00-3 SW846 8260 B ND(1.9) 2.8 J ND(7.4) ND(19) 5.8 ND(93)

Chloroform 67-66-3 SW846 8260 B ND(1.2) 4.3 J ND(4.7) ND(12) ND(1.2) ND(59)

Chloromethane 74-87-3 SW846 8260 B ND(1.4) ND(1.4) ND(5.8) ND(14) ND(1.4) ND(72)

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 SW846 8260 B ND(1.4) ND(1.4) ND(5.7) ND(14) ND(1.4) ND(72)

1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 SW846 8260 B 2.7 J 2.8 J ND(6.7) ND(17) 2.6 J ND(83)

1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 SW846 8260 B ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(7.9) ND(20) ND(2.0) ND(99)

Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 SW846 8260 B ND(2.9) ND(2.9) ND(11) ND(29) ND(2.9) ND(140)

Toluene 108-88-3 SW846 8260 B ND(1.5) ND(1.5) ND(6) ND(15) ND(1.5) ND(75)

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 SW846 8260 B ND(2.2) ND(2.2) ND(8.8) ND(22) ND(2.2) ND(110)

Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 SW846 8260 B ND(0.50) ND(0.50) ND(2.0) ND(5.0) ND(0.50) ND(25)

Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 SW846 8260 B 40 38 21 36.9 J 72 ND(110)

Xylene (Total) 1330-20-7 SW846 8260 B ND(1.3) ND(1.3) ND(5.0) ND(13) ND(1.3) ND(63)

Phenol 108-95-2 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C ND(0.58) ND(0.58) ND(0.58) ND(0.58) ND(0.64) ND(0.62)

Acetophenone 98-86-2 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C 5,220 9,110 4,790 9,010 9,190 9,950

Hydroquinone 123-31-9 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.6) ND(5.4)

Methanol 67-56-1 SW846-8015 (DAI) 656,000 858,000 806,000 490,000 265,000 620,000

Formaldehyde 50-00-0 SW846 8315 SW846 8315 25 ND(6.3) 162 ND(6.3) ND(6.3) ND(6.3)

Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 SW846 8315 SW846 8315 844 10.1 J 8,370 85 ND(4.8) 2,110

Detected values are reported in bold font.

MDL values are reported in italic font for ND values.

* GP = General Purpose resin

HMW = High Molecular Weight resin

LMW = Low Molecular Weight resin

Concentration (ug/l)

Wastewater stripper (U-1202)

Process water

Discharge of the wastewater stripper (Stream W-1221) that flows to

biological treatment

The samples were analyzed by Accutest Laboratories.
Analytical Sampling Results for Sump, Column, Centrate and Scrubber Wastewater

OxyVinyls, LP

Pedricktown, NJ

Wastewater Type LP Sump LP Sump

Stripping

Column Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Centrate Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber

Flow Diagram

Equipment No. U-602 U-602 U-203 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 U-603 C-212 C-212 C-212 C-212 C-212 C-212

Flow Diagram

wastewater Stream

number W-604 W-604

Equipment

Opening

condensate to

W-604 S-619 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 S-620 W-200 W-200 W-200 W-200 W-200 W-200

Suspension Grade

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

General

Purpose

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

General

Purpose

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

General

Purpose

General

Purpose

Med and

High

Molecular

Wt.

General

Purpose

Date Sampled 11/4/2009 1/17/2009 11/4/2009 11/1/2009 11/2/2009 11/3/2009 11/4/2009 11/9/2009 11/10/2009 11/11/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/14/2009 12/19/2009 1/16/2010 11/2/2009 11/4/2009 11/9/2009 11/20/2009 12/19/2009 1/15/2010

Date Received by Lab 11/5/2009 1/17/2009 11/5/2009 11/2/2009 11/3/2009 11/4/2009 11/4/2009 11/9/2009 11/10/2009 11/11/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/14/2009 12/20/2009 1/16/2010 11/3/2009 11/4/2009 11/9/2009 11/20/2009 12/20/2009 1/15/2010

Lab Report Number JA32106 JA37850 JA32106 JA31877 JA31878 JA31992 JA32106 JA32436 JA32471 JA32573 JA32886 JA32886* JA33006 JA35945 JA37828 JA31878 JA32106 JA32436 JA33536 JA35945 JA37676

Compound CAS No. Method of Analysis

Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 DAI by GC/MS 8260 SIM ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) No Test ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120) ND(120)

Benzene 71-43-2 SW846 8260 B ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(1.2) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23)

Chloroethane 75-00-3 SW846 8260 B ND(0.37) 3.0 59.0 ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37) 1.9 2.1 1.6 2.6 2.1 5.3 ND(0.37) 0.9 J ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37) ND(0.37)

Chloroform 67-66-3 SW846 8260 B ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(1.2) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) 1.8 ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23) ND(0.23)

Chloromethane 74-87-3 SW846 8260 B ND(0.29) ND(0.29) 13.4 ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29)

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 SW846 8260 B ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(1.4) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29) ND(0.29)

1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 SW846 8260 B ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(1.7) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) 0.58 J 0.52 J 0.62 J 0.65 J 0.61 J 0.71 J ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33) ND(0.33)

1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 SW846 8260 B ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(2.0) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40) ND(0.40)

Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 SW846 8260 B 2.3 ND(0.57) 17.6 ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57) ND(0.57)

Toluene 108-88-3 SW846 8260 B ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(1.5) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30) ND(0.30)

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 SW846 8260 B ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(2.2) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44)

Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 SW846 8260 B ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.50) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.10)

Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 SW846 8260 B 2.5 23.4 2,960 ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) ND(0.44) 3.6 3.8 2.5 3.8 3.3 11.1 ND(0.44) 2.0 ND(0.44) ND(0.44) 1.3 0.52 J ND(0.44) 1.4

Xylene (Total) 1330-20-7 SW846 8260 B ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(1.3) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25) ND(0.25)

Phenol 108-95-2 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C 23.8 1.7 J 25.3 15.5 20.7 24.0 26.2 ND(0.58) ND(0.58) 2.0 3.1 2.5 3.7 23.2 ND(0.60) 20.5 23.0 3.3 ND(0.58) 24.1 ND(0.58)

Acetophenone 98-86-2 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C 1,270 255 1,310 1,410 1,600 1,360 1,840 781 650 776 812 710 950 745 562 243 327 110 184 226 89.2

Hydroquinone 123-31-9 SW846 8270 C SW846 3510C ND(5.0) ND(25) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.5) ND(5.2) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.4) ND(5.0)

Methanol 67-56-1 SW846-8015 (DAI) 993 1,630 645 870 1,310 1,000 1,270 2,000 2,230 2,010 2,320 3,480 2,710 696 1,720 662 328 829 1220 ND(34) 308

Formaldehyde 50-00-0 SW846 8315 SW846 8315 610 175 277 J 300 589 590 613 464 400 185 161 150 164 276 625 914 1,110 756 327 633 300

Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 SW846 8315 SW846 8315 1,040 411 1,830 1,200 1,650 1,630 1,060 2,140 2,150 1,900 4,340 3,670 3,460 174 2,740 1,490 340 2830 947 659 679

*Duplicate

Detected values are reported in bold font. Sample

Values reported with a "J" indicate an estimated value.

Concentration (ug/l) Concentration (ug/l) Concentration (ug/l)

The samples were analyzed by Accutest Laboratories.
EXHIBIT III

Data and Calculation Spreadsheets from 13 PVC Facilities for

Wastewater Stripper Discharge Non-Vinyl Chloride TOHAP

Limits
EXHIBIT III

List of Data and Calculation Spreadsheets from 13 PVC Facilities for

Wastewater Stripper Discharge Non-Vinyl Chloride TOHAP Limits

(submitted in the enclosed CD)

VI PVC MACT Wastewater Sampling Test Results 6-13-12.xlsx

WW TOHAP Recalc 06062012.xlsx
EXHIBIT IV

Process Vent Sampling Flow Rate and Concentration Data for

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0107
Exhibit IV: Process Vent Sampling Flow Rate and Concentration Data for

Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0107

Facility Control Device Flow Rate (Inlet) Flow Rate (Outlet) THC Concentration Readings CH4 Concentration Other Analytes

FPC – DE Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC MACT FPC DE

Testing-Emissions_Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC MACT FPC DE

Testing-Emissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData-Outlet-jack

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC MACT FPC DE Non

CBI_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC MACT FPC DE

Testing-Emissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData-Outlet-jack

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC MACT FPC DE

Testing-Emissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

FPC – TX Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC TX PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC TX PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet(VOST

HAPs)

- TestingData-Outlet (M26A

& 320)

- TestingData-Outlet (SVOL)

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC TX Non-CBI -

PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC TX PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC TX PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

FPC – LA

Process Gas

Incinerator/

Caustic Scrubber

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC LA PVC_TestingEmissions_Data1.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC LA PVC_TestingEmissions_Data1.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

Semivolatile

- TestingData-Outlet

VolsFTIR

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC LA Non CBI PVC_COTHC-CH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC LA PVC_TestingEmissions_Data1.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- FPC LA PVC_TestingEmissions_Data1.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Georgia Gulf –

Aberdeen Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia_Gulf_Aberdeen_PV

C_Testing- Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia_Gulf_Aberdeen_PV

C_Testing-Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- GeorgiaGulf_Aberdeen_PVC

_CO-THC-CH4_

Aberdeen_Monitoring_Final

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- GeorgiaGulf_Aberdeen_PVC

_CO-THC-CH4_

Aberdeen_Monitoring_Final

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia_Gulf_Aberdeen_PV

C_Testing-Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Georgia Gulf –

Plaquemine Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia Gulf

Chemicals_Plaquemine_PVC

_Testing-Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia Gulf

Chemicals_Plaquemine_PVC

_Testing-Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia Gulf

Chemicals_Plaquemine_PVC

_CO-THC-CH4_Monitoring

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia Gulf

Chemicals_Plaquemine_PVC

_CO-THC-CH4_Monitoring

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Georgia Gulf

Chemicals_Plaquemine_PVC

_Testing-Emissions_Data

Worksheet:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E
Facility Control Device Flow Rate (Inlet) Flow Rate (Outlet) THC Concentration Readings CH4 Concentration Other Analytes

Oxy – Deer Park LaPorte Thermal

Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data Deer

Park.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data Deer

Park.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData(SVOCs)-Outlet

- TestingData(VOC)-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Deer Park

MonitoringNC.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data Deer

Park.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data Deer

Park.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Oxy – Pasadena Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data

NC.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data

NC.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData(VOC)-Outlet

- TesingData(HCLCL2)-Outlet

- TesingData(SVOC)-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- CO-THC-CH4_Monitoring

Pasadena NC.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data (B)

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data

NC.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Testing-Emissions Data

NC.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Shintech – Addis Thermal Oxidizer/

Scrubber

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Shintech –

Freeport

Incinerator/

Scrubber

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Shintech PVC_TestingEmissions_Data 022610.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Shintech PVC_TestingEmissions_Data 022610.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Shintech 30-Day PVC_COTHC-CH4_Monitoring

022610.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Shintech PVC_TestingEmissions_Data 022610.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Shintech PVC_TestingEmissions_Data 022610.xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Shintech –

Plaquemine

Thermal Oxidizer/

Scrubber

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC Testing-Emissions

Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet_PVC

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC Testing-Emissions

Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC CO-THC-CH4

Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC Testing-Emissions

Data.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC Testing-Emissions

Data.xls

Worksheet(s):

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E
Facility Control Device Flow Rate (Inlet) Flow Rate (Outlet) THC Concentration Readings CH4 Concentration Other Analytes

Westlake –

Calvert City Thermal Oxidizer

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data- Calvert

City_2-26-10 .xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data- Calvert

City_2-26-10 .xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring-Calvert

City_2-26-10.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data- Calvert

City_2-26-10 .xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_Data- Calvert

City_2-26-10 .xls

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Westlake –

Geismar

Primary and Oxy

Incinerators,

Incinerator

Scrubber

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_DataGeismar.xlsx

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet (PVC

WET)

- TestingData-Inlet (PVC

DRY)

- TestingData-Inlet (OXY

REACTOR)

- TestingData-Inlet (UVS)

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_DataGeismar.xlsx

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring-1-

Geismar.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_DataGeismar.xlsx

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Outlet

- TestingData(DioxinFuran)-

Outlet

- TestingData(PCB)-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PVC_TestingEmissions_DataGeismar.xlsx

Worksheets:

- All

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

PolyOne – Henry VGA

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Henry-PVC_TestingEmissions_Datafor VI.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Henry-PVC_TestingEmissions_Datafor VI.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Henry- PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Henry-PVC_TestingEmissions_Datafor VI.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- Henry-PVC_TestingEmissions_Datafor VI.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

PolyOne –

Pedricktown VGA

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PolyOne Pedricktown

PVC_TestingEmissions_Data for KH.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Inlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PolyOne Pedricktown

PVC_TestingEmissions_Data for KH.xls

Worksheet:

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 31, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PolyOne Pedricktown

PVC_CO-THCCH4_Monitoring.xls

Worksheet:

- CO-THC-CH4 Monitoring

Data

Cell Nos: Column D

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PolyOne Pedricktown

PVC_TestingEmissions_Data for KH.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Row 36, Columns C-E

Excel Spreadsheet:

- PolyOne Pedricktown

PVC_TestingEmissions_Data for KH.xls

Worksheets:

- TestingData-Inlet

- TestingData-Outlet

Cell Nos: Rows 39-End,

Columns C-E

Oxy –

Pedricktown VGA Routed through PolyOnePedricktown facility

Routed through PolyOne

Pedricktown facility

Routed through PolyOne

Pedricktown facility

Routed through PolyOne

Pedricktown facility

Routed through PolyOne

Pedricktown facility
EXHIBIT V

PolyOne Concentration Database for Vent Gas Absorbers
EXHIBIT V

List of PolyOne Concentration Databases for Vent Gas Absorbers

(submitted in the enclosed CD)

Henry- PVC_CO_CEMS_Monitoring.xls

Henry- PVC_CO-THC-CH4_Monitoring.xls

Henry-PVC_Testing-Emissions_Data.xls

PolyOne Pedricktown PVC_CO_CEMS_Monitoring.xls

PolyOne Pedricktown PVC_CO-THC-CH4_Monitoring.xls

PolyOne Pedricktown PVC_Testing-Emissions_Data.xls
EXHIBIT VI

Generalized Procedure to Evacuate and Service a VCM Filter

at a Typical PVC Facility
Generic Vinyls

PVC - Issue Date

Page 1 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

SCOPE: This procedure describes the steps necessary to evacuate and service the VCM

filters.

• Removing from service

• Returning to service

REQUIREMENTS: The poly floor operator is responsible for performing this procedure.

Maintenance must wear fresh-air when opening the filter.

Used filter elements must be placed in plastic bags and removed from the poly floor roof

and disposed of in the BFI bin.

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS VCM MSDS

DEFINITIONS None

PROCESS EQUIPMENT : VCM Charge Line II VCM Charge Filter RVCM Filters, Virgin VCM Filter

MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT (36) Filter cartridges

SAFETY Hazardous materials are materials that present a health

and/or physical hazard. Refer to the attached chemical description which lists the

hazardous material, the hazards they present and the controls used to minimize the

hazard.

QUALITY This is a quality critical procedure. The filter elements must

be installed properly to prevent quality problems.

ENVIRONMENTAL There are environmental regulations associated with the

opening of this equipment that must be properly followed throughout this procedure. The

filter elements must be disposed of properly to comply with environmental regulations.
Generic Vinyls

PVC - Issue Date

Page 2 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

PROCEDURE

REMOVING FROM SERVICE

1.0 Approval 1.1 Request the use of the #1 vacuum pump.

1.2 Verify with the DCS operator which filter is

to be serviced.

NOTE

The servicing of the VCM charge filters must be coordinated

with the DCS operator to ensure reactor charges are not

delayed.

1.3 Close and lock the following valves on the filter:

• Inlet valve from charge pump

• Outlet valve to reactor

• Relief valve to LP header valve

1.4 Open the drain valve to the RVCM receivers.

NOTE

By draining off as much liquid VCM as possible to the

receivers, evacuation of the filters will be more efficient.

1.5 Close and lock the drain valve when the pressure is

equalized between the filter and the RVCM receivers.

2.0 Evacuate the Filter 2.1 Open the upper block valve to the evacuation and

purge header.

2.2 Monitor the filter to ensure the pressure is dropping.

2.3 Slowly open the drain valve on the bottom of the filter

once a vacuum is established on the filter.

2.4 Close the drain valve.

2.5 Remove the plug from the drain valve at the bottom of

the filter.
Generic Vinyls

PVC - Issue Date

Page 3 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

WARNING

Block valves can leak through causing VCM vapors to build

behind plugs. Remove plugs slowly to prevent possible

VCM exposure.

2.6 Insert a Chicago coupling into the drain valve.

2.7 Connect a steam hose to the drain valve.

NOTE

The condensate should be blown out of the steam hose

before connecting to the filter.

2.8 Slowly open the steam to the filter once a

vacuum on the filter is reached.

NOTE

Monitor the filter pressure on the local pressure gauges on

the filter. Once the filter housing and the piping are warm,

let the filter steam for 5 minutes to ensure the filter is clear of

VCM.

2.9 Close the following valves:

• Steam to the filter at the hose station

• Close and lock upper and lower block valves to

the evacuation and purge header

NOTE

Lock sample valve to sample station.

2.10 Disconnect the steam hose from the filter.
WARNING

Ensure that filter is under a vacuum after the steam hose is

blocked in. This will ensure that all of the hot condensate

has been removed from the hose to prevent serious burns

when removing.

2.11 Notify the DCS operator that you are through

with the vacuum pump.

3.0 Prepare the Filter for

Opening

3.1 Have the DCS operator start up the steam jet.

3.2 Open the block valve on the filter to align the filter to the steam jet.

3.3 Open the drain valve at bottom of filter to pull air through the filter.

NOTE The steam jet should be allowed to

pull air through the filter for 2-3 minutes to

ensure it is cool enough for maintenance to

begin work.

3.4 Close and tag the block valve to the steam jet. Must

be able to use valve if necessary - (ex: pressure build

up from a valve leaking by, etc.)

3.5 Notify the DCS operator you are finished with the

steam jet.

4.0 Open the Filter 4.1 Have maintenance tag lock box.

4.2 Issue permit to maintenance.

WARNING

Maintenance must wear all required PPE (gloves, fresh air)

while removing the filter head to prevent exposure to VCM

and/or burns from hot piping.

Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 4 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date
Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 5 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

4.3 Collect an opening/loss sample with a MiniRAE meter.

4.4 Record the results on the work permit.

4.5 Allow maintenance to begin replacing elements.

4.6 Inspect the filter elements for damage and

general condition.

4.7 Inform the Lead Operator of the condition of the

filter elements.

NOTE

Some or all of the elements may be saved to let the

technical group inspect.

RETURNING TO SERVICE

1.0 Place Filter Back in

Service

1.1 Ensure there is no debris in the filter pot.

1.2 Verify the filter elements stabilizing ring is installed.

1.3 Ensure a new head gasket is installed.

1.4 Have maintenance place the head on the filter and secure.

2.0 Pressure Test the Filter 2.1 Connect an air

hose to the drain valve on the bottom of the filter.

2.2 Pressure up the filter to 80 psig with air.

2.3 Block in the air to the filter.

2.4 Soap test for leaks. If OK, have maintenance

remove tags from lock box.
Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 6 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

WARNING

The filter must be leak tight to prevent employee exposure to

VCM vapors, and to prevent any leaks to atmosphere.

3.0 Evacuate the Filter 3.1 Block in the drain valve at the bottom of the filter.

3.2 Disconnect the air hose and install the plug.

3.3 Have the DCS operator start up the steam jet.

3.4 Open the block valve to the steam jet.

CAUTION

Ensure the filter is pulled into a good vacuum to remove any

oxygen which would affect product quality and to prevent a

reaction between VCM and oxygen.

4.0 Return the Filter to

Service

NOTE If the filter shall remain on stand-by, it is

left evacuated.

4.1 Unlock and open the valve from the filter outlet to the

charge header and remove the tag.

4.2 Unlock and open the filter inlet and remove the tag.

4.3 Align the sample station.

4.4 Notify the DCS operator the filter is back in service

(VCM charge filters).

5.0 Perform Housekeeping 5.1 Roll up hoses and store.

5.2 Return the MiniRAE to storage and place on charger.
Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 7 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

5.3 Ensure the plugs are in the valves.

5.4 Ensure the filter elements are disposed of properly.

SERVICING RELIEF VALVES

1.0 Prepare to Service the

Relief Valve

1.1 Obtain approval from the production superintendent and/or Lead Operator.

1.2 Ensure maintenance is ready.

1.3 Isolate the filter.

1.4 Evacuate the filter.

NOTE Refer to the section "Removing From

Service" in this procedure for specific

instructions.

2.0 Prepare the filter for

Maintenance

2.1 Unlock and close the tagged block valve to the low pressure (LP) header.

2.2 Lock and tag the LP header valve in the closed position.

2.3 Issue permits.

3.0 Inspect the Relief Valve and Rupture Disk

3.1 Compare the tag information on the one removed from service to the one being

installed.

• Set pressure/temperature

• Size

3.2 Ensure the relief valve/rupture disk is installed properly:

• Proper type bolts/studs (no all-thread rods)

• Bolts tightened evenly

• Proper type, size, and number of gaskets

4.0 Service the Filter NOTE

The filter is serviced each time it is evacuated/steamed.
Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 8 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

5.0 Pressure 5.1 Connect an air hose to the drain valve on the bottom of

5.2 the filter.

Pressure up the filter to 80 psig with air.

5.3 Soap test for leaks.

WARNING

The filter and relief valve assembly must be leak tight to

prevent employee exposure to VCM vapors and any leads to

the atmosphere. If any leaks are found, vent the pressure

and repair the leak(s). Pressure up again and check for

leaks.

5.4 Block, bleed, and disconnect the air hose.

5.5 Vent the pressure to the atmosphere.

5.6 Close the drain valve and install plug.

6.0 Align the Relief Valve 6.1 Unlock and open the valve to the LP header.

6.2 Lock and tag the valve in the open position.

Temporary Operation

7.0 Temporary Operation 7.1 When temporary operations are required, the

Production Superintendent will develop procedures

before they begin. An MOC (Management of Change)

will be generated. Training will be conducted and

documented.

Emergency Operation

8.0 Emergency Operation 8.1 When emergency operations are required, the

Production Superintendent will coordinate with the

Lead Operator on duty. Training will be conducted and

documented at the time of the emergency.
Generic Vinyls

PVC Issue Date

Page 9 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

Emergency Shutdown

9.0 Emergency Shutdown 9.1 Block in inlet, outlet, and all bleed valves.

CONSEQUENCES OF

DEVIATION AND STEPS

TO RECOVER

Procedure

Step

Problem

Description

Consequence

of Deviation

System Response Tag

Number

Steps to Recover

2.10 Failure to ensure

filter is under a

vacuum after

steam hose

blocked in

Operator could be

potentially sprayed

with hot condensate

resulting in burns

None N/A Repeat training,

monitor vacuum

before disconnecting

steam hose

2.4,

5.3

Failure to soap

test for leaks

Potential employee

exposure to leaking

VCM vapors, potential

reportable release

Area GC monitors, LEL

detection system

N/A Tighten bolts if

leaking gasket, or

shutdown, evacuate,

and make repairs

REVISIONS/TRAINING

TABLE

Rev. # Change

Training

Required

Yes/No

0 Initial issue. Yes

1 Added third bullet to step 1.3. Replaced the

word tag with lock. Added note after step 2.9.

Revised step 3.4. Added steps 7.0, 8.0 & 9.0.

Yes
Generic Vinyls

PVC - Issue Date

Page 10 of 10 Rev.# 1

Production

VCM Filters

Rev. Date

VINYL CHLORIDE MONOMER (VCM)

DESCRIPTION: A colorless, sweet smelling gas

at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.

PROPERTIES: Flammable and toxic. Cancer suspect agent.

HAZARDS: Harmful if inhaled. Causes thermal burns.

Rapid evaporation of the liquid causes frostbite to skin

and eyes.

SYMPTOMS: Loss of sensation, state of stupor, and loss of

consciousness. PPE:

Refer to PPE Sampling Matrix for specific PPE, required when sampling. Airline

respirator, chem-proof gloves and rubber boots. Splash suit if possible danger of

splash.

CONTROL: In the event of a leak, eliminate ignition sources, notify the

supervisor, and stop or control the leak if it can be achieved without undue risk. Use water

spray to disperse vapors and protect personnel.

FIRST AID: Eyes: Immediately flush eyes with water for 15 minutes.

Forcibly hold eyelids apart to ensure

irrigation of all eye and lid tissue. Seek

medical attention.

Skin: If direct liquid contact

occurs, flush with water. If frostbite or

burn occurs, do not rub the area. Get

immediate medical attention.

Inhalation: Move victim to fresh air.

Apply appropriate first aid treatment as

necessary. Get immediate medical

attention.

Ingestion: N/A

REFER TO THE MSDS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
EXHIBIT VII

PVC MACT Working Group Analysis of Initial and Monthly

Compliance with Car Seal Inspection Requirements
Operational Actions to Comply with EPA’s PVC MACT Bypass

Provisions
06.07.2012

1

Operational Actions to Comply with EPA’s PVC MACT Bypass Provisions

Notes:

1. Since there are no bypass exemptions, any component within the closed vent system (CVS) that could

cause a HAP-containing gas stream to be diverted away from the control device and then be discharged

to the atmosphere must have a bypass indicator (i.e., flow indicator & alarm; or, a car-seal/lock & key

mechanism), including any of the following no matter what size (e.g., 1⁄2 in valve on a drain):

a. Low leg drains;

b. High point bleeds;

c. Valves on open ended lines;

d. Pressure relief devices; and,

e. Analyzer vents.

2. Since there is no clear exemption for equipment that has met the PVC MACT equipment opening

requirements; any HAP release event must be considered, including:

a. Any remaining fugitive HAP gases after the equipment opening emission standard at 40 CFR

63.11955 has been met; and,

b. Vapor collection systems from miscellaneous vents (e.g., loading lines)

c. Exhaust gas from analyzer vents, such as a ambient air monitoring system required by 40 CFR

63.11956

3. In addition, consideration must be made to any bypass that could “cause air intrusion into the control

device” (40 CFR 63.11930(g)(1)); for example:

a. Manway hatch on a CVS Knockout pot

4. Burden to comply with the Bypass provisions is considered an independent burden from the CVS

Inspection and Monitoring requirements (e.g., initial inspection using EPA Method 21 monitoring

procedures; and, annual audio, visual, olfactory (AVO) inspection thereafter).

Summary of Actions Required in Order to Comply:

Action #1: Identifying affected Closed Vent System (CVS) equipment and potential bypasses prior to installing

Bypass indicators

Action #2: Develop and implement procedures to prevent/minimize bypass “violations” and certify compliance

including:

1. Ensuring bypass indictor changes are tracked (e.g., flow indictors alarms, car seal is broken);

2. Required actions are performed (e.g., if alarm is triggered; identify the cause); and,

3. Required records and reports are maintained and retained; including potential release events.

Action #3: Develop and implement Added/ Removed Car-Seal Tracking Procedures and other data Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) checks

Action #4: Conduct Bypass Training

Specific Details Follow Below
06.07.2012

2

Action #1: Identifying affected Closed Vent System (CVS) equipment prior to bypass indicator installation, which

includes the following steps:

Step 1.1: Determining Regulatory Applicability:

Determine if there are any other regulatory overlaps with the PVC MACT (e.g., CVS is shared with HON

regulated Unit; State-required CVS special conditions)

Step 1.2: P&ID Review and Speciation

The Operations Department and the Environmental Department review P&IDs to determine which CVS

Bypass components are “in HAP service,” and which are reasonably expected not to be exceed 5% wt.

HAPs.

Step 1.3: Field Verify

The Operations Department, combined with the efforts of the Environmental Department, will field verify

the location of the CVS Bypass equipment and confirm existing speciation of chemicals that could be

diverted through the bypass component.

Step 1.4: Install Bypass flow indicator or hang Car-seal

The Operations Department will install the bypass indicator equipment, which may entail the need to rent

a lift to raise personnel up to a bypass valve; shut down of equipment that is unsafe to work on (e.g., too

hot; under construction scaffolding); obtain safety permits, etc.

Step 1.5: Establish database/log sheet of affected bypass equipment

Data elements necessary for finding and inspecting regulated components include some of the following,

using a car-seal example:

 Unit

 Process Area

 Equipment

 Car Seal Number

 Component Type (e.g. valve, pressure relief device, etc.)

 Size

 Service Type

 Applicable Rule (if overlap; determine which supersedes)

 Location Description

 Accessibility (difficult to monitor?, unsafe to monitor?)

 Process Stream Identification

 Process and Identification Drawing (P&ID) Number

 Safety equipment necessary to perform inspections

Action #2: Develop and implement procedures for:

1. Ensuring bypass indictor changes are tracked (e.g., flow indictors alarms, car seal is broken);

2. Required actions are performed (e.g., if alarm is triggered; identify the cause); and,

3. Required records and reports maintained and retained; including potential release events and CVS leak

repairs.

ASSUME CAR-SEALS ARE INSTALLED:

Step 2.1: Visually inspect car seal monthly:

 Develop and implement inspection route & inspection forms

 Complete inspection to determine if car seal is still in place (e.g., did not fall off due to

deterioration) or broken due to discharge through the valve; and/or, replaced with new Car-Seal

mechanism/ID number.
06.07.2012

3

Record:

 Date,

 Car Seal number

 Inspection results, including bypass valve position.

Step 2.2: If opening a car-sealed bypass for any reason:

Complete Car seal tracking form: Record date, time, Car seal number and if emissions occurred.

If emissions occurred: Record the following information:

 Date and time the bypass was opened/closed;

 The duration of the flow in the bypass;

 Records of the times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device or the

flow indicator is not operating;

 Complete emission estimations; and,

 Because Event is considered a violation: Follow PVC MACT “Affirmative Defense” provisions,

with a “preponderance of evidence” to support valve change is not a “violation” (see 63.11930(c)(2)(ii)

and 63.11895).

Step 2.3: Records & Reporting

Report:

 Semi-annually within PVC MACT Report: Each instance for which a bypass valve is changed to the

diverting position.

 Other Repotting mechanisms (e.g., Semi-Annual Title V Deviations Report; annual Emissions

Inventory, etc.)

Action #3: Develop and implement Added/ Removed Car-Seal Tracking Procedures needed to ensure that

covered equipment added to/ removed from the Unit for any reason is integrated into the Car-Seal inspection and

reporting program

Step 3.1: Rectify Car Seal Numbers

 Car seal numbers on the monthly inspection sheet need to match up with the car seal numbers in

the field.

 During a turnaround or complex maintenance event; numerous maintenance-type valves, like

low-leg drains, will be opened.

 As such, new car seals are installed; the old car seal number needs to be retired from the

inspection sheets and a new car seal number inserted.

 Rectifying car seal numbers may take considerable effort if 100-200 maintenance-type bypass

valves are open during a major turnaround.

Action #4: Bypass Training – Procedures and training protocols are needed to describe actions to be taken

if a bypass release occurs; what to look for during car-seal inspections, etc.

Step 4.1 By Pass Training: Since monthly inspections are needed; car seals number tracked; broken car
06.07.2012

4

seals replace, compliance certifications required, etc. in order to prevent “violations,” training on the issue

needs to be provided to the following personnel:

 Operations Department;

 Maintenance Department;

 Instrumentation Department;

 Contractors; and,

 Environmental Department.

Step 4.2: Compliance certifications: Due to the specific PVC MACT requirements to certify compliance

(e.g., 40 CFR 63.11985(a)(9)), the following types of personnel also need to be trained on the

requirements:

 The Responsible Official;

 Site Managers; and/or

 Vice Presidents/ General Managers
Bypass Burden Cost Estimate: PVC MACT
6.7.12 By Pass Labor Burden Cost Estimate: PVC MACT

Hourly Rates (from EPA's Air Poll. Control Cost Manual):

Actions Initial Annual Operator/Supervisor 47.71$

Step 1.1 Determine Regulatory Applicability Process/Env. Engineer/Tech 83.01$

Assume: 2 Eng. 4 hrs 664.08$ Management 121.38$

Step 1.2: P&ID Review and Speciation Example PVC Unit:

Assume: 2 Eng for 24 hr 3,984.48$ Number of Car Sealed bypasses 350

Step 1.3: Field Verify Number of Car Seals broken in a year

Assume: 2 Eng for 24 hr & 1 Op. for 24 hr 5,129.52$ 1. Reactor Opening (assume 4 Reactors)

Four Bypass valves open daily/ Reactor 5840

Step 1.4: Install Bypass flow indicator or hang Car-seal 2. Maintenance Valves in non T/A Year 200

Assume: 2 Op. for 20 min/bypass 11,132.33$

Total: 6040

Step 1.5: Establish database/log sheet of affected bypass equipment

Assume 1 Eng for 40 hr 3,320.40$

Step 2.1: Visually inspect car seal monthly:

Assume Polyolefins Inspection Rate by Op.: 7 min/bypass 23,377.90$

Step 2.2: Actions if opening a car-sealed bypass (Violation; must

investigate & develop corrective actions):

Assume 1 Op, 1 Eng & 1 Mgr 1 hr/event 733,265.92$

VOC tpy release* TPY VOC

Step 2.3: Records & Reporting Small Equipment 2

Assume 1 Eng & 1 Mgr 2 hr/month 4,905.36$ Large Equipment 1.4

Total per Unit: 3.4

Step 3.1: Rectify Car Seal Numbers Total MSS all 17 PVC Units: 57.8

Assume 1 Eng for 2 hr/month 1,992.24$

*MSS Calc for a suspension PVC Unit -

Step 4.1 By Pass Training: assume residual emitted from bypass is 10%

All Operations & Env. Employees (assume 50) 2 hr initial 4,771.00$ of total emitted

Responsible Official/Site Managers, (assume 3) for 30 min initial 182.07$ Total Fugitive HAPs Emitted

from Maintenance Bypasses by all PVC Units 5.78

Total per PVC Unit: $ 29,184 $ 763,541 Cost Effectiveness ($/ton VOC) $ 2,245,710

Total all 15 major & 2 area PVC Units $ 496,126 $ 12,980,204 Potential Penalty/ Violation $37,500

Annual Cost Per Bypass $ 2,182 T/A= Turnaround

MSS = Maintenance, Startup, Shutdown emissions
EXHIBIT VIII

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Release Indicators
EXHIBIT VIIIa

Westlake Cost Estimates from Honeywell
Page : 1 of 3 

AWC 

Customer Details Quotation 

Name : Allen Bodron Quotation Date : 03/15/2012 

Company : Westlake Chemical 

Address : Quote From : Randy Hamilton 

 

Tel : Reference : 

Fax : 

Subject: XYR6000 (Pressure Transmitter Option) 

Dear Allen, 

This is budgetary quote per your request. This proposal at this time does not reflect 

project pricing or bundling of items in starter kit fashion to save cost. Two WDM and 

two FDAT are quoted to reflect redundancy aspect you are trying to achieve. Release 

210 will have redundancy already integrated and this will be released end of this year. 

The fastest scan time available with this solution is 1 sec with this wireless technology. 

If you have any questions pleas feel free to call. 

Regards, 

Randy Hamilton 

Account Manager 
Page : 2 of 3 

Pos Qty Description Unit Price Total 

1 2 WDMS-00-KD-000-00 

OneWireless 

 Device Manager 

OneWireless Network R200 Documentation Kit 

$ 4,298.00 $ 8596.00

2 2 FDAP2-F6SA00-F6SA00-WM-DD-0000 

OneWireless 

Field Device Access Point with Class 1 Div 2 

certification 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.: 6 dBi Integral Omni 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.:with Integral Lightning Surge 

Arrestor 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.:No Cable 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.: 6 dBi Integral Omni 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.:with Integral Lightning Surge 

Arrestor 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.:No Cable 

Wall mount kit 

OneWireless Network R200 Electronic 

Documentation on CD 

$ 3,444.00 $ 6888.00

3 50 STGW94L-E1A-00000-R0000-XF,BA,1C-NA00 

XYR 6000 Wireless Transmitter 

In-Line Gage & Absolute Pressure 

Series 900 

Gage pressure : 0-20 to 0-500 psig/0-1.4 to 0-

35 bar 

316 SS wetted process head, 316L SS barrier 

diaphragms 

Silicone fill fluid 

Process connection configuration : 9/16" - 18 

Aminco 

Integral Right-angle, vertical 4 dBi 

None 

None 

2.4 GHz Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum 

(FHSS) 

Battery 

FM IS, Explosion proof, non incendive, non 

sparking 

North America,Canada 

$ 3,164.00 $158200.00

4 1 Dolphin Handheld for Downloading Keys $ 1700.00 $ 1700.00

 
Page : 1 of 3 

AWC 

Customer Details Quotation 

Name : Allen Bodron Quotation Date : 03/15/2012 

Company : Westlake Chemical 

Address : Quote From : Randy Hamilton 

 

Tel : Reference : 

Fax : 

Subject: XYR6000 (Digital Input Option) 

Dear Allen, 

This is budgetary quote per your request. This proposal at this time does not reflect 

project pricing or bundling of items in starter kit fashion to save cost. Two WDM and 

two FDAT are quoted to reflect redundancy aspect you are trying to achieve. Release 

210 will have redundancy already integrated and this will be released end of this year. 

The fastest scan time available with this solution is 1 sec with this wireless technology. 

If you have any questions pleas feel free to call. 

Regards, 

Randy Hamilton 

Account Manager 
Page : 2 of 3 

Pos Qty Description Unit Price Total 

1 2 WDMS-00-KD-000-00 

OneWireless 

 Device Manager 

OneWireless Network R200 Documentation Kit 

$ 4,298.00 $ 8596.00

2 2 FDAP2-F6SA00-F6SA00-WM-DD-0000 

OneWireless 

Field Device Access Point with Class 1 Div 2 

certification 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.: 6 dBi Integral Omni 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.:with Integral Lightning Surge 

Arrestor 

DSSS Ant. 1Opt.:No Cable 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.: 6 dBi Integral Omni 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.:with Integral Lightning Surge 

Arrestor 

DSSS Ant. 2 Opt.:No Cable 

Wall mount kit 

OneWireless Network R200 Electronic 

Documentation on CD 

$ 3,444.00 $ 6888.00

3 50 STXW500-000-0000-R0000-XF,BA,TG,SB,1CEU00 

XYR 6000 Wireless 

Multi Discrete Input Transmitter 

Series 500 

Wireless Transmitter with Three Discrete Inputs 

Integral Right-angle, vertical, 4dBi 

2.4 GHz Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum 

(FHSS) 

Battery 

Stainless Steel Customer Wired-On Tag 

Mounting Bracket - 304 SS 

FM,IS,Explosion-proof,Nonincendive,NonSparking 

For use in European Union 

$ 2,600.00 $130,000.00

4 

 

50 Fike BDI (Burst Disk Indicator) $ 250.00

 

$ 12,500.00

5 1 Dolphin Handheld for Downloading Keys $ 1700.00 $ 1700.00 

 
EXHIBIT VIIIb

Westlake Cost Estimates from Champion Technology Services
From: "Mehrdad Ghorashi" <Mehrdad.Ghorashi@champtechnology.com>

To: "Bodron, Allen" <abodron@westlake.com>

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:28 AM

Subject: EPA OPC Data Integration to Honeywell

Allen,

Per our discussion, I have the following scope captured:

1) Establish OPC Connectivity to Data Server

2) Build of 50 OPC Points to the Honeywell SCADA

3) One (1) tabular graphic showing all data points

If the OPC server is remote to your Honeywell servers, I recommend purchasing and installing

Honeywell’s OPC tunneller (~$2,400) to make the connection to the remote OPC server so you don’t

have to compromise the security settings of the Honeywell servers..

Here is the cost breakdown:

1) Services - $4,400 (T&M @$110/hr)

a. Install necessary software

b. Build Channel and Controller for OPC data

c. Build 50 EPA Quickbuilder points

d. Develop 1 graphic displaying data points

2) Software – OPC Tunneller - $2,400

Total cost = $6,800

Feel free to call me with any questions or comments.

Thanks,

Mehrdad Ghorashi

Business Manager

Champion Technology Services, Inc. 

17991 Old Perkins Rd. East, Suite E **Please note new office address and phone number**

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

Office: 225-615-8120

Cell: 225-802-2179

Fax: 225-612-6394

email: Mehrdad.ghorashi@champtechnology.com

www.champtechnology.com

Legal Notice: This electronic communication, including any attachments, contains information from Champion Technology Services, Inc. or

its subsidiaries that may be legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended

recipient, any use or dissemination of this communication or its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received

this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, destroy any printed copies and delete it from all computers on which it

may be stored.
EXHIBIT VIIIc

Dow Chemical Corporation Cost Estimates for

Wired PSV System
Dow Chemical Corporation Cost Estimate for

Wired PSV System With Installation of

an Additional Junction Box
Global Project Controls

Project Cost Estimate Summary Report

Rev. 1.30

Dow Site Louisiana Operations Date February 29, 2012

Project Name PSV Switch Installation Cost Eng. M. Dugas

Project No./Auth.No. Proj.Mngr. Don Eure

Auth. Date April 1, 2012 Proj.Eng.

RTO Date May 1, 2012 Plant

Dow Furnished Material

3000 Civil/Steel

4000 Piping Materials

6000 Instruments $4,142

7000 Electrical

8000 Local Orders 0.0% of DFM

9000 Major Equipment 0.0% included for spare parts

DFM total $4,142

Contracts Manhrs Labor Material

Major Equipment

Civil

Steel

Piping

Instrumentation 37 $2,062 $253 $2,315

Electrical 123 $7,244 $1,315 $8,559

Insulation

Paint

Scaffolding $900 $900

Demolition

Equipment Rental $2,048 $2,048

Overtime Premium

Winter Work (Labor Only)

1000 Contracts total 160 $13,822

Indirects % of estimate

2100 Project Management 2.5% $872

2200 Process Engineering

2300 Process Control Engineering

2400 Design Engineering 14.2% $4,920

2500 Procurement 0.3% $109

2600 Construction Management 5.0% $1,736

2700 Business Direct Engineering

2800 Outside Engineering

2900 Miscellaneous 3.8% $1,326

Indirects total 25.9% $8,964

Special Items

3100 Taxes & Fees 9.0% $698

3200 Inspection & Testing

8600 Freight 1.0% $57

Special Items total $755

Subtotal Direct, Indirect and Special Items $27,683

3700 Contingency 24.8% $6,860

3800 Cost Trend 03.0% /yr

Total $34,543

669000 Capitalized Interest 06.6% /yr $457

Amount Requested for Capital $USD $35,000

Exchange Rate: $ US

Expense Cost $2,833

Total Expense $2,833

Estimate Accuracy - Planning

Range high + 35% $USD $47,250

low - 25% $USD $26,250

Estimate Probability 60% CEI 5.62

Signatures

Project Eng.____________________ Date_______________ Project Manager____________________ Date_______________
EXHIBIT VIIIc

List of Calculation Spreadsheets for Dow Chemical Corporation

Cost Estimate for Wired PSV System

With Installation of an Additional Junction Box

(submitted in the enclosed CD)

PSV Switch Installation Summary.xlsx
Dow Chemical Corporation Cost Estimate for

Wired PSV System Without Installation of

an Additional Junction Box
Global Project Controls

Project Cost Estimate Summary Report

Rev. 1.30

Dow Site Louisiana Operations Date February 29, 2012

Project Name PSV Switch Installation Cost Eng. M. Dugas

Project No./Auth.No. Proj.Mngr. Don Eure

Auth. Date April 1, 2012 Proj.Eng.

RTO Date May 1, 2012 Plant

Dow Furnished Material

3000 Civil/Steel

4000 Piping Materials

6000 Instruments $540

7000 Electrical

8000 Local Orders 0.0% of DFM

9000 Major Equipment 0.0% included for spare parts

DFM total $540

Contracts Manhrs Labor Material

Major Equipment

Civil

Steel

Piping

Instrumentation 21 $1,165 $185 $1,350

Electrical 68 $4,041 $932 $4,973

Insulation

Paint

Scaffolding $900 $900

Demolition

Equipment Rental $1,146 $1,146

Overtime Premium

Winter Work (Labor Only)

1000 Contracts total 89 $8,369

Indirects % of estimate

2100 Project Management 4.7% $872

2200 Process Engineering

2300 Process Control Engineering

2400 Design Engineering 13.4% $2,521

2500 Procurement 0.6% $109

2600 Construction Management 5.5% $1,033

2700 Business Direct Engineering

2800 Outside Engineering

2900 Miscellaneous 4.6% $871

Indirects total 28.8% $5,407

Special Items

3100 Taxes & Fees 9.0% $252

3200 Inspection & Testing

8600 Freight 1.0% $17

Special Items total $269

Subtotal Direct, Indirect and Special Items $14,585

3700 Contingency 28.6% $4,174

3800 Cost Trend 03.0% /yr

Total $18,759

669000 Capitalized Interest 06.6% /yr $241

Amount Requested for Capital $USD $19,000

Exchange Rate: $ US

Expense Cost $2,833

Total Expense $2,833

Estimate Accuracy - Planning

Range high + 35% $USD $25,650

low - 25% $USD $14,250

Estimate Probability 60% CEI 10.52

Signatures

Project Eng.____________________ Date_______________ Project Manager____________________ Date_______________
EXHIBIT VIIIc

List of Calculation Spreadsheets for Dow Chemical Corporation

Cost Estimate for Wired PSV System

Without Installation of an Additional Junction Box

(submitted in the enclosed CD)

PSV Switch Installation Summary no JB.xls