January 15, 2014

Via Electronic and First Class Mail

Ms. Jodi Howard

Environmental Engineer, Refining and Chemicals Group

U.S. EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code: E143-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Howard.Jodi@epa.gov

RE: Supplemental Information for Reconsideration: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers Production (PVC MACT”), 77 Fed. Reg. 22,848 (April 17, 2012)

Dear Ms. Howard:

As a follow up to the November 19, 2013 conference call and webcast between 

the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group (hereinafter, “Working Group”)1 and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA”), this submission provides, as you 

requested, the charts and data presented to the Agency with further explanation. The 

Working Group remains committed to ensuring that EPA has sufficient data on which to 

base a PVC MACT rule that complies with the mandates of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”) 

and related legal precedents, that allows the PVC and copolymer industry to continue 

producing the mix of products upon which its customers depend, and that permits U.S. 

manufacturers to grow their businesses in a competitive global environment. In pursuit 

of those goals, we would like to reemphasize several critical points as the Agency 

considers this submission: 

1. The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held that EPA may reasonably estimate 

emissions performance provided that it does so based on actual data from 

the best performers in the industry;

2. While certain pollution control devices in the PVC industry are well known 

and achieve a similar level of control, the key to ultimate emission levels is

the variability of resin recipes. Therefore, the best performing “similar” 

source used to set new source limits, as required by the Act, is the one for 

which data from a broad array of resin slates is available. This notion also 

is in keeping with Section 112(d)(2)’s mandate that emission control 

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

Corporation/Oxy Vinyls, LP, Mexichem Specialty Resins Inc. (formerly PolyOne Corporation), Shintech 

Inc., and Westlake Chemical Corporation, the PVC MACT Working Group has included non-VI members 

The Dow Chemical Company and Axiall (formerly 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 compound materials.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 2 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

measures should not “in any way compromise” trade secrets or intellectual 

property rights.

The history of this rulemaking supports these points. As we have pointed out 

before, the D.C. Circuit in Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, upheld EPA’s 

determination that it was impossible to determine the best performing five sources in the 

PVC production category because of the great variability in residual vinyl chloride 

monomer (RVCM) emissions resulting from product slates.

2

 Indeed, the data collected 

by EPA during this rulemaking further demonstrates that this variability is a result of the 

type of resin being produced, not the technology or processes applied to control 

emissions. 

Although the D.C. Circuit has stated that EPA cannot base the MACT floor

exclusively on technology if non-technology factors, such as inputs, affect emission 

levels,

3 nowhere has the court indicated that EPA could so restrict inputs as to change 

the nature of the product produced by the affected facilities. Restrictions on PVC 

ingredients are particularly problematic for this rulemaking, as PVC ingredients and 

recipes are not drop-in replacements for the industry’s customer base.4 The problems 

in the Agency’s current approach are especially evident in the new source emission 

limits, because the limits as currently set would restrict future facilities to the limited 

product slate used to set the limit. 

I. New Source Non-VC TOHAP Limit for Stripped Suspension Resins Does 

Not Truly Reflect the Best Performing Facility

As the Working Group has stated often, the resin strippers used in the PVC 

industry are designed to control VC, the major raw material used and the only common 

ingredient used within every facility. Although focused on VC control, the resin strippers 

also control, to a degree,5 the individual hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that constitute

total organic HAP (TOHAP). What drives residual non-VC TOHAP, however, is the 

initial concentration of non-VC TOHAP in the resin sample, which is largely a function of 

 2 Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242-43 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The D.C. Circuit 

supported the validity of this approach most recently in NACWA v. EPA, No. 11-1131 at *32, *69 (D.C. 

Cir. Aug. 20, 2013) (Sewage Sludge Incinerator MACT case). 

3 Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“EPA’s decision to base floors exclusively on 

technology even though non-technology factors affect emission levels thus violates the Act.”).

4 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146 at p. 7-11; Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-

0037-0561 at p. 6-7.

5 As noted before, additional stripping to increase removal of HAPs results in significant degradation of 

the resin. Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146 at 12, 37; Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR2002-0037-0146 at 12, 37; Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146, Attachment 4 (Vendor 

Letters Regarding Stripping of PVC Slurries) and Attachment 5 (Powerpoint Presentation from Oxy Vinyls, 

LP – Joint Industry/EPA Meeting, June 30, 2011, Regarding PVC Stripping to Reduce PVC RVCM and 

Impact of Particle Morphology and Column Operating Parameters).
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 3 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

resin recipes and product slates.6 This makes determining “the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source”

7 (i.e., the new source 

MACT floor) practically impossible for TOHAP, because sources with strippers capable 

of the “best” level of performance are not “similar” and residual TOHAP is not indicative 

of achievable control. 

This issue is most prominent for suspension resins, a subcategory that 

encompasses a broad range of resin grades, resin recipes, and product uses. As 

discussed with EPA during the November 19th conference call, the Working Group 

examined the stripped resin data for suspension resins provided in response to the 

2009 Section 114 Request. The interactive database demonstrated during the meeting 

is included with this letter as Attachment I.

8

 As the Working Group noted, when these 

different resins (made with different recipes) are compared to the 15 ppm non-VC 

TOHAP new source limit for suspension resin, it is clear that very few resins can comply 

with this limit, as seen in Figure 1. 

 6 Table 1 “Suspension and Dispersion Resin Chemistry”6 in the Working Group’s comments on the 

proposed PVC MACT provides additional information on the roles of different ingredients. Docket 

Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0146 at 11.

7 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3).

8 Letter designators were assigned to each resin grade to blind the data.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 4 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Figure 1: Non-VC TOHAP Concentrations by Resin Recipe
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 5 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

This fact is unsurprising, given that the facility used to set the new source nonVC TOHAP limit for suspension resin only manufactured two resins during the sampling 

period. This limited product slate encompasses only a sliver of the product ingredient 

and morphology combinations used in suspension resins, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Resin Morphology

Figure 1 also makes clear that the high concentrations observed for some resins 

are a function of resin recipe rather than stripper performance. For example, Oxy 

Vinyls, LP Deer Park (Oxy DP) produced several resins that were consistently below the 

15 ppm non-VC TOHAP limit and several resins that were always above the limit. This 

discrepancy is common to the subcategory, as several other facilities produced some 

resins near the 15 ppm limit and others significantly above the new source limit. 

Returning to the initial point, recall that the resin stripper is designed to remove 

VC. Thus, the best measure of whether a resin stripper is performing well is VC

concentration. Viewed from this perspective, some of the sources and resins that are 

the worst performers (for TOHAP) should actually be considered among the best 

performers. For example, two resins produced by Axiall Plaquemine had some of the 

highest TOHAP concentrations, but were in the top ten for VC concentration.9

 

Moreover, the best performer used to set the new source limit for VC, Formosa Baton 

Rouge, would be unable to meet the new source TOHAP limit for any of its resins based 

on the average TOHAP concentration.

 9 Axiall Plaquemine AB and V resins. Please note that Axiall is identified as “GG” in Figure 1 and 

Attachment I.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 6 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

To better illustrate the difficulty in selecting a best performer, the Working Group 

reviewed the VC and TOHAP concentration range and average for each resin grade for 

which such data is available. This information, presented below in Table 1 and included 

as Attachment II, demonstrates that only four resins (highlighted in green) could be 

produced at a new PVC facility to meet both the new source VC and non-VC TOHAP 

limits on a continual basis. If the low range of non-VC TOHAP data is used, another 

eight resins (highlighted in blue) would be expected to be made on an occasional basis 

and meet the new source VC and TOHAP limits. Of the 53 total suspension resins 

studied during the 2009 Section 114 Request, some 41 grades would not be able to be 

produced at all under the new source VC and non-VC TOHAP limits. 

The Working Group recognizes that under the PVC MACT, existing sources must 

meet a non-VC TOHAP limit of 670 ppm. Given, however, that (1) to date the industry 

has not had to design strippers that control for TOHAP, and (2) the 15 ppm new source

limit is based on two resins, none of which can meet the new source VC limits, Working 

Group members currently are unaware of any technology that would provide for such 

combined VC and TOHAP performance across the entire slate of resins produced by 

the industry, even in a newly designed facility. In short, 15 ppm represents a dramatic 

reduction in TOHAP by any sort of measure and would appear, by extrapolation, to 

preclude the continued production of 85% of resins now produced by the PVC industry. 

The Working Group previously identified the wide variation in stripped resin 

performance on an individual HAP basis in its August 17, 2013 letter, which further 

emphasizes the difficulty in selecting a best performer.10 

Table 1: Stripped Resin Data by Grade by Producer

(Source: 2009 S114 Request for 30 Day Resin Analysis)

Vinyl Chloride M107

New Source Limit = 7.3 ppm

Non-VC TOHAP

New Source Limit = 15 ppm

Reporting Plant Resin Grades 

Sampled

Min.

(ppm)

Max. (ppm)Average

(ppm)

Min.

(ppm)

Max. (ppm)Average

(ppm)

FPC- LA

A,B 0.21 1.11 0.54 35.05 54.63 41.61

A,B,C 1.08 1.08 1.08 54.12 54.12 54.12

A,C 0.14 0.86 0.35 12.95 61.75 41.24

A,C,E 0.11 0.11 0.11 44.37 44.37 44.37

A,D 0.66 0.72 0.69 11.76 38.45 25.10

A,D,G 0.43 0.43 0.43 47.42 47.42 47.42

A,E 0.29 1.51 0.73 37.43 44.57 40.86

A,E,F 2.07 2.07 2.07 35.80 35.80 35.80

A,F 0.47 0.47 0.47 36.42 36.42 36.42

A,F,D 0.18 0.18 0.18 36.88 36.88 36.88

A,G 0.22 0.60 0.37 32.09 42.63 36.67

A,G,B 0.26 0.52 0.39 13.46 38.18 25.82

FPC-TX

H,I,K 0.51 1.05 0.70 12.56 25.36 18.70

H,I,K,L 0.54 0.57 0.56 14.28 19.10 16.69

H,I,L 0.52 0.75 0.58 17.11 19.87 18.45

H,J,I,K 0.57 0.68 0.62 15.62 21.05 18.51

H,J,K 0.60 0.75 0.67 17.31 19.80 18.90

 10 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561 at 15.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 7 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Table 1: Stripped Resin Data by Grade by Producer

(Source: 2009 S114 Request for 30 Day Resin Analysis)

Vinyl Chloride M107

New Source Limit = 7.3 ppm

Non-VC TOHAP

New Source Limit = 15 ppm

Reporting Plant Resin Grades 

Sampled

Min.

(ppm)

Max. (ppm)Average

(ppm)

Min.

(ppm)

Max. (ppm)Average

(ppm)

Axiall-Aberdeen

M 0.26 87.63 29.60 261.92 318.63 285.02

N 1.00 100.39 27.27 205.73 228.91 216.44

O 0.17 88.10 9.50 190.44 267.50 231.20

P 1.39 9.02 4.61 226.21 250.42 236.23

Q 150.90 150.90 150.90 250.79 250.79 250.79

R 1.09 7.38 3.23 179.75 213.33 192.20

S 0.14 0.14 0.14 2.56 246.37 124.47

Axiall-Plaquemine

AA 2.25 2.25 2.25 211.96 211.96 211.96

AB 0.27 0.27 0.27 237.80 290.46 264.13

AC 0.32 0.32 0.32 246.80 246.80 246.80

AD 0.41 0.41 0.41 365.76 365.76 365.76

T 0.23 1,063.00 153.35 226.80 346.35 258.40

U 3.82 11.50 8.77 196.01 213.72 206.09

V 0.24 0.24 0.24 228.40 258.79 237.72

W 234.86 234.86 234.86

X 0.30 0.86 0.54 226.89 238.37 231.71

Y 2.27 5.05 3.41 119.17 244.43 199.25

Z 19.30 19.30 19.30 229.47 229.47 229.47

Oxy DP

AE 0.62 4.28 2.51 15.84 19.42 17.63

AF 0.29 7.09 2.21 7.55 17.41 10.18

AG 0.11 0.36 0.23 6.57 12.84 9.23

AH 0.06 0.25 0.14 4.65 6.05 5.18

AI 0.03 0.39 0.18 4.60 6.38 5.70

AJ 0.02 0.14 0.06 4.39 6.63 5.27

AK 0.06 109.60 18.49 20.11 24.68 22.22

Oxy Pas

AL 2.02 5.65 3.92 48.10 104.90 78.45

AM 0.57 1.06 0.92 94.49 128.52 107.04

AN 0.52 1.10 0.75 74.05 121.25 96.37

AO 2.31 10.60 6.92 42.41 114.32 63.56

Oxy Ptown

AP 3.91 33.00 9.52 22.77 95.67 36.63

AQ 0.22 0.52 0.34 12.34 84.61 63.31

AR 0.06 2.61 0.74 27.89 38.82 33.06

Shintech AD

AS 2.36 4.98 3.67 67.28 70.05 68.11

AT 1.51 1.82 1.66 67.84 67.93 67.89

AT,AS 4.14 4.14 4.14 67.71 67.71 67.71

AU 0.25 0.43 0.36 67.77 68.15 68.00

AU,AT 1.43 1.43 1.43 67.97 67.97 67.97

AV 0.38 0.38 0.38 68.02 68.02 68.02

AV,AU 0.37 0.37 0.37 68.23 68.23 68.23

Shintech PL AX 0.30 3.37 2.01 67.28 68.03 67.72

Shintech TX AW 3.00 9.00 6.81 66.36 67.19 66.75

Westlake-LA AY 50.37 142.01 96.45 0.09 8.39 0.69

AZ 15.00 40.00 23.88 0.09 5.09 3.19

Westlake-KY BA 4.90 95.08 29.26 207.41 332.41 247.55

-- 4 Resin Grades that can meet both the 7.3 ppm VC limit and the 15 ppm Non-VC TOHAP limit are highlighted in green.

-- 8 Resin Grades that can meet both the 7.3 ppm VC limit and the 15 ppm Non-VC TOHAP limit some of the time are highlighted in blue.

Ultimately, the question is whether the new source suspension resin limit is 

based on the best-controlled similar source, given the facility resin mix, and whether the 

limit reflects what is achieved in practice. The Agency is aware that the 2009 Section 

114 Request data represents only 44% (53 out of 120) of the total number of 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 8 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

suspension resins produced by the industry, as shown in Table 2. In contrast, Working 

Group members submitted a 4-year data set for VC, which we would agree can be 

assumed to represent most, if not all, grades produced by the submitting facilities. A 

similar assumption cannot be made for the non-VC TOHAP data available to the 

Agency, however, because the data was obtained only over 30 days of sampling. Such 

a small data set raises the question of whether the TOHAP data fully captures what is 

achieved in practice.

Table 2: Number of Suspension Resin Grades Sampled in 2009 S114 Request

Company & Facility Resin Type # of Resin 

Grades

# of Resins Sampled 

in 2009 S114 Request

Axiall Aberdeen Suspension 7 7

Axiall Plaquemine Suspension 17 11

Formosa Baton Rouge Suspension 15 7

Formosa Point Comfort Suspension 15 5

Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park Suspension 9 7

Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena Suspension 6 3

Oxy Vinyls, LP Pedricktown Suspension 10 4

Shintech Addis Suspension 12 4

Shintech Freeport Suspension 12 1

Shintech Plaquemine Suspension 12 1

Westlake Calvert City Suspension 1 1

Westlake Geismar Suspension 4 2

Totals 120 53

In light of the disparity in TOHAP data, the Working Group reviewed the data 

provided in Table 1 for indications on how best to identify “the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.” Table 3 shows the range 

of VC and non-VC TOHAP values for each facility during the 30-day sampling period. 

The Working Group submits that EPA could use these ranges to develop a reasonable 

estimate of the best performing facility, as permitted by D.C. Circuit precedent, that not 

only provides the needed variability that accounts for the many different resin grades 

and their corresponding recipe ingredients, but one that represents what is actually 

achieved in practice for a number of different resin grades.

Table 3: VC and TOHAP for Suspension Resin Facilities Using 4-Year and 30-Day Databases*

Rank Suspension Resin 

Analysis VC 4-year VC 30-day TOHAP 30-day

4 Yr. 

VC 

AVG

Facility # 

Resins

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

# 

Resins

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

1 Formosa Baton Rouge 15 0.05 19.83 0.54 0.40 7 0.11 2.07 0.55 0.41 13.21 62.22 39.80 38.84

2 Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer 

Park 9 0.01 49.29 0.86 0.40 7 0.06 109.60 4.91 0.41 6.26 24.80 12.11 8.98

3 Formosa Point Comfort 15 0.44 23.63 1.70 1.52 5 0.51 1.05 0.66 0.62 13.02 26.02 19.08 19.21

4 Shintech Plaquemine 12 0.05 11.04 3.38 3.30 1 0.30 3.37 2.01 2.07 67.53 68.28 67.97 67.99

5 Shintech Freeport 12 0.55 14.82 3.64 3.56 1 3.00 9.00 6.81 7.00 67.36 68.19 67.75 67.74

6 Axiall Plaquemine 17 0.20 35.69 3.68 2.70 11 0.23 1,063.00 45.56 0.76 128.19 365.76 241.13 235.79

7 Oxy Vinyls, LP 

Pasadena 6 0.72 28.33 5.51 4.79 3 0.84 8.85 4.57 5.10 50.96 128.65 77.22 73.92

8 Shintech Addis 12 0.31 24.67 6.11 5.83 4 0.25 4.98 3.02 3.49 67.53 70.30 68.32 68.22

9 Oxy Vinyls, LP 

Pedricktown 10 0.01 73.19 6.89 5.83 4 0.06 33.00 7.63 7.31 12.83 95.94 39.59 33.92

10 Westlake Calvert City 1 0.10 194.10 13.55 9.63 1 4.90 95.08 29.26 21.00 207.56 332.63 247.75 239.46

11 Axiall Aberdeen 7 0.26 163.59 18.65 14.88 7 0.14 150.90 16.42 2.33 181.17 329.72 236.93 233.79

12 Westlake Geismar 4 5.00 201.67 68.91 65.00 2 33.39 142.01 91.93 96.03 0.19 8.49 1.09 0.33

*Data for this table is located in Attachment II.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 9 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

This is not to suggest that the Agency should set a new source limit by resin type 

or grade, but rather that simply averaging the VC and TOHAP concentrations to identify 

the best performing facility overlooks the wide range of resin recipe variability that exists 

within each facility. New source limits for suspension resin facilities were based on the 

VC performance of Formosa Baton Rouge, and the TOHAP performance of Westlake 

Geismar. The Working Group submits, however, that when taking into consideration 

the number of resins sampled, VC and TOHAP concentration ranges, as well as data 

consistency and other factors, Formosa Baton Rouge should be used to set both the 

new source VC and TOHAP limits. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Working Group first compared the two facilities 

with the lowest average 4-year vinyl chloride data. As Table 4 below indicates, the

Working Group noted that the Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park facility achieved the lowest 

level of residual VC in a single sample with a concentration of 0.01 ppm, but had a wide 

variation in VC profile, as evidenced by the highest measurement of 49 ppm. Moreover, 

as both facilities had an identical median of 0.4 ppm, it follows that the Deer Park 

measurements above the median were significantly higher than those of the Formosa 

Baton Rouge facility. Thus, it is not surprising that the Deer Park facility had a higher 4-

year average (0.86 ppm) than the Formosa Baton Rouge facility (0.54). 

Given that both facilities had a median measurement of 0.4 ppm over four years, 

and that the lowest VC concentration measured varied by no more than 0.06 ppm, the 

Working Group submits that the resin stripping performance between the two facilities is 

nigh indistinguishable, and that any variations can be attributed to differences in resin 

slates. Critically, a comparison of the 4-year and 30-day VC data for the Deer Park 

facility indicates that even after sampling seven resins with less variability, the median 

figure for the 30-day data set was fairly close, if not identical. The Baton Rouge facility 

is the better one on which to base the new source limit, however, because: (1) it 

produced 15 different resins during the 4-year data collection; (2) the Deer Park facility 

is an area source; (3) the Baton Rouge facility is a major source; and most importantly,

(4) its 30-day VC data produced almost identical results to the 4-year VC data set.

The similarity of the 30-day and 4-year data set is important because it provides 

a means of obtaining real world calculations for the UPL developed for the new source 

limit. The Working Group submits that if use of the UPL on the 30-day VC data set 

yields an estimated future sample value that appears within the 4-year data set, then 

use of the UPL on the 30-day TOHAP is also supportable. Indeed, at 7.3 ppm, the new 

source VC limit does not appear to reflect the level of variability achieved in practice by 

either of the facilities with the lowest VC concentration, and arguably should be raised to 

20 ppm to reflect the condition that the new source in practice meet the limit all day and 

every day, even during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. 

Nevertheless, EPA’s calculation of 7.3 ppm using 99.9 percentile is highly supportable 

with the data reported in the 4-year data set. 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 10 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Table 4: VC and TOHAP Comparison at Best Performer Candidate Facilities

VC 4-year VC 30-day TOHAP 30-day

Facility # 

Resins

Min.

(ppm)

Max.

(ppm)

Avg.

(ppm)

Median

(ppm)

# 

Resins

Min.

(ppm)

Max.

(ppm)

Avg.

(ppm)

Median

(ppm)

Min.

(ppm)

Max.

(ppm)

Avg.

(ppm)

Median

(ppm)

Deer Park 9 0.01 49.3 0.86 0.4 7 0.06 109.6 4.9 0.41 6.3 24.8 12.1 9

Baton Rouge 15 0.05 19.8 0.54 0.4 7 0.11 2.07 0.55 0.41 13.2 62.2 39.8 38.8

Westlake Geismar 4 5 201.7 68.9 65 2 33.4 142 91.9 96.0 0.19 8.5 1.1 0.33

Turning to the new source TOHAP calculation, we believe that a similar analysis 

supports the use of the Baton Rouge facility to set the non-VC TOHAP limit. The 

Westlake Geismar facility produces very few resins and even fewer of these (only two) 

were sampled for TOHAP. Indeed, the fact that Westlake Geismar did not achieve its 

lowest 4-year VC concentration (5 ppm) during the 30-day Section 114 sampling, 

suggests that it also did not reach its highest TOHAP concentration during the 30-day 

Section 114 sampling either during which time the facility’s lowest VC concentration was 

33.4 ppm. Given the apparent inverse correlation at this facility between low TOHAP 

and high VC concentrations, one would expect a higher TOHAP value than that 

measured during the 30-day sampling (8.5 ppm), as the resin VC concentration 

approaches the aforementioned 4-year low. 

Compare this to Formosa Baton Rouge, which makes 15 resins and sampled 

seven grades for TOHAP. Seven resins present greater opportunity to measure 

variability than two, and the Working Group submits that the Baton Rouge facility 

presents the best opportunity for developing the new source TOHAP limit. Using the 

99.9% UPL calculations in Table 5, the Working Group submits that the new source 

non-VC TOHAP limit should be set at 78 ppm, which corresponds favorably with actual 

measurements obtained from the Baton Rouge facility. This value is based on the use 

of 99.9% UPL as further explained below, and is consistent with the 99.9 percentile 

approach (i.e., 1 in 1,000) used in the determination of the VC limit. The full 

calculations for these approaches are included as Attachment III.

Table 5: Non-VC TOHAP New Source Suspension Resin Limits

Plant Limit Is Based On

Non-VC TOHAP

(ppm)

99% UPL

(m=1)

99.9% UPL

(m=1) 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile

Formosa Baton Rouge 67 78 67 77

The Working Group believes that calculation of non-VC TOHAP limit using 99.9%

UPL is justifiable over the 99% UPL since when using the UPL on the 30 day VC data 

set, the 99% UPL under-predicts the top 1% and 0.1% of the data values in the 4 year 

VC data set for two out of the three facilities examined, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: New Source Vinyl Chloride Limit Determination Comparing UPL 

Based on 30-Day Data Set to Maximum Value in 4-Year Data Set

Plant 30-Day UPL Is Based On

Vinyl Chloride

(ppm)

99% UPL 99.9% UPL Max. Value From

4 Year Data

Formosa Baton Rouge 3 5 19.83

Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park 58 79 49.29

Formosa Point Comfort 2 2 23.63
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 11 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Since the use of the UPL essentially says “99% (or 99.9%) of all future runs will 

be below this number,” the 4-year data was studied in Table 7 to determine the number 

of data points over each of these limits and how that compared to 1% or 0.1% of the 

amount of data points. 

Table 7: Number of Data Points Predicted by UPL Above Limit in 4-Year VC Data Set

Plant 30 Day UPL Is

Based On

Count of 4 Year 

Data Over 99% UPL

Count of 4 Year Data 

Over 99.9% UPL

Count of Total 

Data Points

1% of Total Data 

Points

0.1% of Total 

Data Points

Formosa Baton Rouge 11 6 1,446 14 1

Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park 0 0 1,305 13 1

Formosa Point Comfort 1,056 890 1,461 15 1

The numbers should closely match between the 99% UPL and 1% columns and 

between the 99.9% UPL and 0.1% columns, but it comes close for Formosa Baton 

Rouge. Examining the 4-year data set would drive the new source suspension resin VC 

limit to be 20 ppm, since the best performer (Formosa Baton Rouge) must be in 

compliance all day, and every day, even during startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

events. Yet the new source VC limit was established at 7.3 ppm, which is 

approximately the 99.9 percentile limit determined with the 4-year data set. Given that 

the 99.9% UPL for Formosa Baton Rouge calculates to be only 5 ppm VC, the 

conclusion can be reached that the 99.9% UPL under-reports the values for expected 

future runs. Applying this reasoning and example adds further support for the use of 

99.9% UPL for the TOHAP determination using the data from the best performing VC 

facility. Further examination of the data sets shows that Formosa Baton Rouge and 

Formosa Point Comfort composited their resin samples during the 30-day Section 114 

Request, while Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park did not. This would be a further reason to use 

Formosa Baton Rouge as the new source facility for determining both VC and non-VC 

TOHAP limits because compliance will be demonstrated using a weighted average of 

the resins produced during the sampling period. 

The Working Group submits that comparison of the Section 114 30-day sampling 

data set to the 4 years of samples collected during normal plant operations generally 

provides a suitable means of validating the UPLs and illustrates that it can be a good 

predictor of maximum values for the PVC resin industry at the 99.9% level or higher. 

The UPL considers the variability of the data only, not the factors that make up that 

variability. In the case of vinyl chloride analysis, a number of factors will influence 

minimum and maximum number ranges, including:

1. Resin slate – some resins strip more easily than others, so the data 

represents a different resin slate practically every day;

2. Processing rates – highly variable from day to day, which will affect 

stripping efficiency to a degree;

3. Stripper operating conditions – small changes in temperature and 

pressure due to system fluctuations will influence residual vinyl chloride 

content;

4. Analytical test methods – there is inherent variability in every analytical 

test procedure, and test equipment must be calibrated daily to smooth out 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 12 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

this variability. We do not know the techniques used by each laboratory, 

so it is difficult to remove analytical procedure as a variable.

In summary, the Working Group submits that taking into consideration the issues 

noted above concerning the resin data sets, variability in resin slates, VC and TOHAP 

concentration ranges, and other factors, Formosa Baton Rouge should be used to set 

both the new source VC limit (using the 99.9 percentile approach, which EPA did in the 

final PVC MACT rule) and the new source TOHAP limit (using a 99.9% UPL) for 

stripped resin. The Working Group’s calculations can be found in Attachment III.

II. Approaches for Existing and New Source Limits for Process Wastewater 

A. EPA Must Incorporate Monthly Averages from 13 Month VC Wastewater

Data for Existing and New Source Limits

The Working Group previously provided supplemental wastewater (WW) VC data 

in letters dated August 17, 201311 and October 31, 2013.

12 Combined, these 

supplemental submissions provided EPA with a total of 13 months of VC data for every 

facility in the Working Group for which such data is available. This significantly expands 

the number of data points (from 211 for the top 5 in the 30-day data set to 2,986 for the 

same top 5 in the 13-month data set) and better supports the use of resulting monthly 

averages of wastewater stripper performance for most of the existing PVC facilities in 

the U.S. by incorporating data that is more representative for almost all resin grades 

produced at each facility. The Working Group is unaware of any principled or rational 

basis for not incorporating the full extent of this data into the MACT floor calculations for 

both existing and new sources so that the VC limits include seasonal variations in

production volumes, process efficiencies, and product slates. Of the wastewater data 

available to the Agency, only the 13-month VC data set reflects the “average emission 

limitation achieved” and the “emission control achieved in practice,” respectively.13

The Working Group notes that not all facilities had the same number of data 

points available per month. Since the number of VC sample results for PVC industry 

wastewater strippers varied from once a month/week to multiple samples per day, 

normalization of the data must be done before performing statistical analyses to develop 

emission limits. The Working Group expects that EPA will use the 13-month data set to 

determine the best performers and set the VC WW limits using 13 monthly averages of 

the top 5 performing facilities. As the Agency has recognized in other rulemakings, the 

method for determining compliance should reflect the statistical method used to 

calculate the MACT floor. Consequently, EPA should allow compliance through 

monthly sample averaging rather than a single grab sample for both VC and TOHAP 

sampling. The resin database illustrates the variation in product slates at any given 

facility from one day to the next. Because the use of monthly averages to set the WW 

limit will not account for the spikes that occur due to product slate variation, monthly 

 11 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561, Attachment II.

12 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0570.

13 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3).
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 13 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

sample averaging for compliance is necessary. Following this concept, the Working 

Group calculated vinyl chloride limits, detailed in Table 8, using 13 monthly averages for

which the full calculations are provided as Attachment IV.

Table 8: VC Wastewater Limit Determination Using 13-Month Data Set

Existing Sources New Sources

Top 5 Facilities Monthly Averages

(ppm, 99 % UPL, m=1) Best Performing Facility Monthly Averages(ppm, 99 % UPL, m=1)

1. Oxy Pasadena, TX

2. Formosa LA

3. Shintech Freeport, TX

4. Oxy Deer Park, TX

5. Shintech Plaquemine, LA

3.1 1. Oxy Pasadena, TX 0.43

B. Determining Best Performers for Process Wastewater TOHAP Limits

Wastewater steam strippers used by PVC facilities have been designed to 

remove vinyl chloride in accordance with the VC NESHAP. Other non-VC TOHAP 

constituents may be removed to a lesser degree than vinyl chloride; however, their 

removal has historically not been a design criterion. Therefore, the floor analysis for 

other TOHAP needs to focus on the performance for TOHAP using the best performing 

facilities for vinyl chloride concentration at the outlet of the steam stripper. 

Table 9a: Range, Average, and Median for Vinyl Chloride in Steam Stripped Wastewater

Rank (by 13 

Month Avg VC)

Wastewater Analysis VC 13 Month VC 30 Day

Homopolymer Facility Total # 

Resins

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

1 Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena 6 0.01 0.91 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.91 0.07 0.02

2 Formosa Baton Rouge 15 0.00 17.70 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.03

3 Shintech Freeport 12 0.01 1.81 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.01

4 Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park 9 0.01 4.64 0.28 0.13 0.01 0.95 0.11 0.04

5 Shintech Plaquemine 12 0.01 3.87 0.52 0.48 0.01 0.18 0.05 0.04

6 Westlake Calvert City 1 0.00 123.51 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

7 Shintech Addis 12 0.03 2.16 0.59 0.64 0.03 0.18 0.08 0.08

8 Axiall Aberdeen 7 0.05 8.01 1.00 0.77 0.39 5.35 1.75 1.43

9 Westlake Geismar 4 0.01 9.67 1.20 0.62 0.31 3.60 1.31 1.10

10 Formosa Point Comfort 15 0.01 6.12 1.49 1.57 0.10 0.60 0.20 0.10

11 Axiall Plaquemine 17 0.14 8.78 2.63 2.28 0.14 8.78 2.63 2.28

12 Mexichem Pedricktown 11 0.02 9.63 3.41 2.82 0.02 9.63 4.02 3.60

13 Mexichem Henry 12 0.08 17.84 3.60 1.75 0.08 17.84 7.36 7.14

Rank (by 13 

Month Avg VC) Copolymer Facility # Resins

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

1 Formosa Delaware 14 0.01 16.78 0.78 0.41 0.10 16.78 1.25 0.38

2 Formosa TX SPVC 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.30 9.89 3.04 2.50

Product slates are the determining factor for TOHAP profiles throughout the PVC 

facility. Each of the 177 product grades produced by the industry has a unique recipe 

and yields a unique TOHAP profile, reflected in the WW stream at each facility. 

Although steam strippers designed to remove vinyl chloride also will be effective at 

removing other insoluble analytes, soluble HAPs are not as well removed. It stands to 

reason that, overall, the best performers for WW stripping of organic HAPs are those 

that achieve in practice the lowest VC effluent concentration. Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 14 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

plant, the best VC performer, has very comparable TOHAP performance to the rest of 

the industry when soluble analytes are not included in the sum, as depicted in the far 

right columns of Table 9b. 

The full set of steam stripped WW data submitted to EPA (see Attachment IV), 

as summarized and presented in Table 9a and Table 9b, helps to illustrate this point

across the industry.

14

Table 9b: Range, Average, and Median for TOHAP in Steam Stripped Wastewater

Rank (by 13 

Month Avg 

VC)

Wastewater Analysis Non-VC TOHAP 30-day Non-VC, Non-Soluble (Acetophenone 

& Methanol Excluded) TOHAP 30-day

Homopolymer Facility Total # 

Resins

Min. 

(ppm)

Max.

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

1 Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena 6 543.27 1,083.13 770.63 753.61 14.71 19.06 16.39 16.14

2 Formosa Baton Rouge 15 18.32 107.65 44.20 37.06 4.76 64.31 17.36 11.72

3 Shintech Freeport 12 46.68 66.24 53.64 51.70 8.24 15.32 13.37 14.05

4 Oxy Vinyls, LP Deer Park 9 18.77 27.79 23.66 23.45 13.66 17.64 15.22 15.16

5 Shintech Plaquemine 12 61.51 106.71 78.61 77.66 10.37 19.72 16.17 16.51

6 Westlake Calvert City 1 14.72 76.38 37.15 35.99 1.32 11.65 3.51 1.77

7 Shintech Addis 12 36.41 81.62 56.64 55.57 6.86 14.26 12.70 13.16

8 Axiall Aberdeen 7 25.48 2,349.68 580.25 209.64 5.14 73.51 12.56 8.42

9 Westlake Geismar 4 12.22 252.94 73.41 35.05 1.38 11.95 4.61 4.31

10 Formosa Point Comfort 15 113.02 226.77 154.27 152.98 2.78 18.92 7.33 5.95

11 Axiall Plaquemine 17 18.39 803.57 209.99 71.70 4.59 32.19 13.71 12.52

12 Mexichem Pedricktown 11 23.66 102.50 49.96 45.23 13.77 43.98 18.89 17.96

13 Mexichem Henry 12 3.98 38.62 17.60 16.76 1.97 16.49 11.88 11.94

Rank (by 13 

Month Avg 

VC)

Copolymer 

Facility # Resins Min. (ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

Min. 

(ppm)

Max. 

(ppm)

Avg. 

(ppm)

Median 

(ppm)

1 Formosa Delaware 14 15.53 10,946.61 585.25 36.91 8.98 10,943.74 452.39 18.41

2 Formosa TX SPVC 20 21.92 4,541.10 458.56 216.49 21.18 4,540.74 454.39 216.15

One question that may arise is whether additional steam stripping of wastewater, 

as opposed to resin which would experience degradation, is feasible. As the Agency 

has recognized in other MACTs,15 however, although repeated stripping of wastewater 

would seem to be intuitive as a method of control, such repetition, in fact, does not 

overcome the technical limits from efforts to strip out partially soluble and soluble HAPs. 

The stripped WW data for the best performer in the industry from a vinyl chloride 

perspective, Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena, shows that even after steam stripping the WW 

to remove as much vinyl chloride as possible, significant amounts of soluble analytes 

can still remain.

 14 Please note that data from Dow was not available.

15 The Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON), the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), and the 

Pharma MACT all incorporate separate control approaches for WW streams with high concentrations of 

soluble HAPs, which cannot be effectively removed via WW steam stripping.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 15 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Indeed, the data in Tables 9a and 9b confirms that repeated steam stripping of 

WW from a PVC facility can be very effective for controlling insoluble analytes such as 

vinyl chloride, but not as effective at removing partially soluble and soluble analytes 

such as methanol. Indeed, Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena, the best performer for low VC 

concentration in stripped wastewater with an average VC concentration of 0.04 ppm,

has a non-VC TOHAP concentration range of 543 ppm to 1083 ppm. Conversely, 

Mexichem Henry had the highest average VC in WW (3.6 ppm) yet had one of the 

lowest non-VC TOHAP ranges (4 ppm to 39 ppm). 

Some 54 resin grades were produced at the top 5 VC facilities identified in Table 

9a, which equates to just over 10 resin grades per facility. If EPA were to base its nonVC TOHAP limit on the data associated with the top 5 VC performers, the limits would 

address product variability by including a broad spectrum of resins in calculating the 

limit. Note that producers such as Oxy Vinyls, LP make different resin grades at its 

Pasadena and Deer Park facilities, both in the top 5 for VC performance. Likewise,

Shintech uses different resin recipes at its Freeport, Texas facility than what is being 

made at its Plaquemine, Louisiana plant, also both in the top 5 for VC performance.

C. Copolymer Production Should be Subcategorized for Wastewater

Examination of the non-VC TOHAP data reveals that facilities that make both 

PVC and copolymer resins have unique WW emission profiles that reflect the 

comonomer used. Days of copolymer production at Formosa’s Delaware and Point 

Comfort SPVC plants are readily identifiable by their vinyl acetate profile in their WW.16

As the Working Group has previously advised, vinyl chloride has low water solubility 

(2.7 g/L), yet a relatively high Henry’s Law coefficient (2.65 x 10-2atm-m3/mol),17 which 

reflects a high level of volatility. Thus, steam in proper proportions and in a properly 

designed and operated wastewater stripper is the most practical and efficient design for 

removing vinyl chloride and other relatively insoluble organics in wastewater. Vinyl 

acetate is much more soluble in water than VC, making it more difficult to control using 

steam stripping. Compared to vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate has moderate water solubility 

(23 g/L),

18 and a low Henry’s Law coefficient (5.1 x 10-4

atm-m3/mol),19 which reflects a 

low level of volatility. Vinyl acetate may not be fully removed by a wastewater stripper, 

but should have a low HAP emission rate from the wastewater stream in any case. 

As shown in Tables 9a and 9b, the WW at these two facilities contains higher 

non-VC TOHAP, yet these plants’ VC performance coincides with the rest of the 

industry. Examining non-VC TOHAP data in Table 9b shows Formosa Delaware 

values ranging from 15.5 to 10,900 ppm and Formosa TX SPVC values ranging from 

 16 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561, Figures 4 & 5, at 28, 29.

17 EPA, Air Emissions Models for Waste and Wastewater, Appendix C. EPA-453/R-94-080A.

18 Celanese Product Description and Handling Guide Vinyl Acetate, Nov. 2011, 

http://www.celanese.com/-

media/Intermediate%20Chemistry/Files/Product%20Descriptions/Product_Description_and_Handling_Gu

ide-Vinyl_Acetate.pdf. 

19 EPA, Air Emissions Models for Waste and Wastewater, Appendix C. EPA-453/R-94-080A.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 16 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

21.9 to 4,540 ppm. Thus, the data supports the proposition that wastewater from a 

facility’s copolymer operations should, at the minimum, have a separate non-VC 

TOHAP limit from that facility’s PVC homopolymer operation. The Working Group 

recommends that copolymer operations, during which the separate copolymer limits 

would apply, be defined as those when the vinyl acetate concentration in the WW at the 

stripper exceeds 50 ppm. A concentration-based trigger is necessary because some 

facilities use a batch WW stripper, such that days of copolymer production do not 

necessarily correspond with the days the copolymer WW will be stripped.

D. EPA’s Original 1,000 ppm TOHAP Limit is Supported by the Data

The Working Group continues to believe that a 1,000 ppm non-VC TOHAP limit, 

as originally proposed by the Agency,20 is the best approach; the rationale for this 

approach is discussed in detail in the Working Group’s August 17, 2013 letter, along 

with the negative consequences that will result if producers are no longer able to 

manufacture certain resin grades.21

The WW data submitted to EPA indicates that a non-VC TOHAP wastewater limit 

of 1,000 ppm is justifiable. As depicted in Table 10, using the top 5 VC performers to 

determine the non-VC TOHAP limit, at 99% UPL the limit calculates to be 770 ppm and 

at 99.9% UPL the limit calculates to be 970 ppm. The Working Group notes that limits 

calculated using this approach appear to adequately address soluble HAPs and support 

the Agency’s original proposal to set the limit at 1,000 ppm TOHAP. It should be 

mentioned that a 99.9% UPL considers more fully the SSM scenarios now mandated to 

be controlled as per Section 63.11890(a). Moreover, in concert with the preceding

discussion regarding the new source limits for stripped resin and factors contributing to 

variability, the 99.9% UPL more appropriately predicts this variability for WW in the PVC 

industry. 

Table 10: Non-VC TOHAP Wastewater Limit Determination Using 30-Day Data Set

and Top 5 VC Performers

Resins Type VC Top 5 Non-VC TOHAP

(ppm, 99% UPL, m=1)

Non-VC TOHAP

(ppm, 99.9% UPL, m=1)

PVC Homopolymer

1. Oxy Pasadena, TX

2. Shintech Freeport, TX

3. Formosa LA

4. Oxy Deer Park, TX

5. Shintech Plaquemine, LA

770 970

PVC Copolymer 1. Formosa DE

2. Formosa SPVC TX 8,400 30,00022

As shown in Table 9b, the daily high non-VC TOHAP was 1,083 ppm for the 

OxyVinyls, LP Pasadena facility during the 30-day sampling period. The 30-day non-

 20 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

Production, 76 Fed. Reg. 29,528, 29,537, 29,600-01 (May 20, 2011).

21 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561 at 26–37.

22 Given the magnitude of this number, the Working Group recommends EPA determine the limit at 99.9 

percentile for the copolymer data reported by these facilities. 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 17 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

VC TOHAP data set contains 13 data points out of the total 211 data points that are 

above the 770 ppm limit, and 3 data points out of 211 that are above the 970 ppm limit. 

Although the size of the 30-day data set is suitable to apply UPL methods for limit 

determination, limits based on 99.9 percentile will more appropriately predict what is 

actually achieved at these facilities across periods of operation far beyond the 30 days 

studied. The full calculations for these approaches are included in Attachment V. 

However, the Working Group submits that using the top 5 VC performers to establish 

the non-VC TOHAP limits as described below in Section II.F is the most appropriate

method of determining the WW limits separately for soluble and insoluble HAPs.

E. Soluble HAP Analytes Should be Managed Separately from Insoluble

Volatile HAP Analytes

If the Agency is unwilling to reconsider their original 1,000 ppm non-VC TOHAP 

proposal, another alternative may be feasible: soluble HAPs conceivably could be 

regulated separately as was done in the MON, HON, and Pharma MACTs. Table 11

sets out the PVC MACT WW analyte list and their status under the MON and HON. In

total, MON Tables 8 & 9 encompass 23 of the PVC MACT Table 10 HAPs, while HON 

Table 9 encompasses 26 of the PVC MACT HAPs. The MON and HON list methanol 

and acetophenone as soluble HAPs and the Working Group proposes alternatively that 

a category of soluble HAPs could be established in the PVC MACT that includes at 

least these two HAP chemicals. 

Table 11: Treatment of PVC MACT HAPs in MON and HON

CAS No. HAPs Listed @ Table 10 of PVC MACT 

(Subpart HHHHHHH)

Partially Soluble HAPs Listed @

Table 8 of MON

(Subpart FFFF)

Soluble HAP Listed @ Table 9 

of MON & HON 

(Subparts FFFF and G, respectively)

107211 Ethylene glycol

67561 Methanol Yes

75070 Acetaldehyde Yes

50000 Formaldehyde

51285 2,4-dinitrophenol

98862 Acetophenone Yes

117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

123319 Hydroquinone

108952 Phenol

79345 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Yes

106990 1,3-butadiene

540841 2,2,4-trimethylpentane

71432 Benzene Yes

108907 Chlorobenzene Yes

67663 Chloroform Yes

126998 Chloroprene Yes

98828 Cumene Yes

75003 Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) Yes

100414 Ethylbenzene Yes

107062 Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) Yes

75343 Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) Yes

74873 Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) Yes

75092 Methylene chloride Yes

110543 n-Hexane Yes

108883 Toluene Yes

71556 Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Yes

79005 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

108054 Vinyl acetate Yes
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 18 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Table 11: Treatment of PVC MACT HAPs in MON and HON

CAS No. HAPs Listed @ Table 10 of PVC MACT 

(Subpart HHHHHHH)

Partially Soluble HAPs Listed @

Table 8 of MON

(Subpart FFFF)

Soluble HAP Listed @ Table 9 

of MON & HON 

(Subparts FFFF and G, respectively)

593602 Vinyl bromide

75014 Vinyl chloride Yes

75354 Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene) Yes

1330207 Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) Yes

F. Establishing Separate Limits for Soluble and Insoluble TOHAPs

Should EPA decide to set separate limits for copolymer wastewater, then the

Working Group suggests that EPA consider one of two approaches for calculating the 

non-VC TOHAP limits. The alternative approach depicted in Table 12 (see Attachment 

V) uses the top 5 VC performers to set the TOHAP limits using a 99% UPL. In this 

alternative, soluble HAPs (methanol and acetophenone) are segregated and their limits

determined separately, and the remaining non-VC TOHAPs are determined without the 

soluble components. For copolymer operations, the limit for vinyl acetate is calculated 

separately instead of soluble TOHAPs using only the data points for copolymer 

production at those facilities (>50 ppm at Formosa’s Point Comfort SPVC plant and the 

designated copolymer data at Formosa’s Delaware plant). 

Table 12: Alternative Limit for Non-VC and Non-Soluble TOHAP

with Solubles Separate (Methanol, Acetophenone)

Resin Type VC Top 5

Non-VC & Non-Soluble 

TOHAP 

(ppm, 99% UPL, m=1)

Soluble HAP (Methanol 

& Acetophenone)

(ppm, 99% UPL, m=1)

PVC Homopolymer

1. Oxy Pasadena, TX

2. Shintech Freeport, TX

3. Formosa LA

4. Oxy Deer Park, TX

5. Shintech Plaquemine, LA

45 1,100

Non-VC & Non-VA TOHAP

(ppm)

Vinyl Acetate

(ppm)

PVC Copolymer 1. Formosa DE

2. Formosa SPVC TX 340 38,000

G. EPA Should Rely on 99.9% UPL for TOHAP Limit Determination and 

Monthly Average Compliance Sampling

In vacating the Part 63 SSM exemption, the D.C. Circuit stated that the Clean Air 

Act requires “continuous section 112-compliant standards.”23 Thus, the PVC MACT 

requires that facilities be in compliance with the process WW limits during all types of 

emission events (normal operations, startups, shutdowns and malfunction events), per 

Section 63.11890(a). Because the Agency is required to base the emissions limits on 

the actual performance of existing sources, the limits should reflect all operating 

scenarios. There will be times when a WW stripper experiences short-term upset 

conditions or different TOHAP effluent concentrations during a startup or shutdown 

 23 Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 19 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

event. The TOHAP limit should be inclusive of those times. The necessity of this 

approach is underlined by the method for demonstrating compliance: facilities are to 

take a “grab” (i.e., instantaneous) sample, so there is no opportunity to average sample 

results that encompass SSM events over a relatively long period of time. 

The limited 30-day WW data for TOHAP does not adequately capture these 

operating scenarios. The Working Group suggests two potential approaches. As 

previously discussed, a 99.9% UPL better addresses variability in TOHAP 

concentrations at the outlet of the WW stripper, whether from differences in resin 

slates, production rate changes, or SSM events that occur as production lines are 

switched back and forth from one resin product to another. Using a 99.9% UPL for the 

TOHAP WW limits would address shortcomings in the data set with regard to data from 

SSM events.

Alternatively, the Working Group strongly recommends that the Agency allow 

monthly average compliance sampling by allowing the analysis of up to five samples per 

month, with averaging of all samples analyzed to determine compliance. This approach 

would match the Working Group’s proposed approach for VC sampling in WW, as 

discussed in Section II.A of this letter, and appropriately address the comparatively 

small impact of SSM events on overall WW stripper performance. 

III. Alternative Approaches for Process Vent Limits

The Working Group has previously discussed with the Agency the unique 

challenges associated with applying a process vent limit calculated from facilities using 

a thermal oxidizer to facilities using vent gas absorbers (VGA”) as a control and 

recovery device for process vents. In the Working Group’s August 17, 2013 letter,24 we 

proposed and explained how a mass-based limit would address VGAs. As we detail 

below, a mass-based alternative limit would not need to be adjusted based on 

confidential production volumes. 

To address additional concerns raised by the Agency, the Working Group also 

submits that an outlet flow applicability threshold of one dry standard cubic meter per 

minute (DSCMM”) should be included for the mass-based limit to prevent any emissions 

performance differences among facilities with like technology and similar size. With 

these qualifications, the Working Group views mass-based limits as a necessary option 

for EPA to include in the reconsidered PVC MACT rule.

The Working Group is also concerned by the new source limits for process vents, 

which do not account for the capabilities and actual performance of the control devices 

used in PVC facilities. The Working Group submits that the best performing facility on 

the basis of VC should be used to set the limits for new sources for all emissions 

controlled by the thermal oxidizer, in order to meet the Clean Air Act’s requirement that 

new source limits reflect what is achieved in practice.

 24 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561 at 56-57.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 20 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

A. Clarification on Production Adjustment for Mass-Based Limits

As the Working Group noted in discussions with EPA, process vent volumes are 

poorly correlated with production rates because the vent volume is driven by the 

recovery system. Figure 3 depicts the closed vent system and process vent in an effort 

to show the typical components, but configurations will vary by plant. Flow from the 

recovery system is a factor of efficiency and the presence of inerts, non-condensables, 

impurities, and byproducts. These factors do not increase linearly with production, but 

are driven by recipe and equipment. 

Figure 3: Typical PVCPU Closed Vent Systems

The Working Group suggested in its August 17, 2013 letter an optional 

demonstration of compliance for output-based mass limits, acknowledging that 

compliance would be relatively unchanged between concentration- and standardized 

flow-based mass limits for most facilities.25 As a result, the Working Group did not 

propose any production adjustment in its alternate mass limit compliance. The Working 

Group continues to believe that such an adjustment is neither necessary nor 

appropriate.

B. Standardized Flow Adjustment Mass-Based Limits as Alternative or in 

Addition to Oxygen Normalization for Low Flow (VGA) Process Vent 

Existing Source Limits

The detailed calculations associated with converting volume based limits in the 

final rule to the alternative compliance mass-based limits and standardized flow 

adjustments are included in Attachment VI. In order to prevent any emissions 

 25 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561 at 55-58.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 21 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

performance differences among facilities with like technology and similar size, the 

Working Group suggests that EPA include an outlet flow applicability threshold for the 

mass-based limit. Examining the flow of the control device for the top 5 PVC-only 

plants, reproduced in Figure 4, indicates they are in a reasonable range of one another. 

The Mexichem facilities that use VGAs, however, reported significantly lower flow from 

the outlet of the control device. Therefore, it would be a simple matter to apply a low 

flow threshold that would permit VGAs to use a mass-based limit alternative, but that 

would exclude facilities that use a thermal oxidizer. The Working Group proposes that a

threshold of 1 DSCMM would be appropriate. Only Mexichem’s VGA units would meet 

this criteria because the exhaust flow from the other PVC-only thermal oxidizers are all 

greater than 10 DSCMM. 

Figure 4: Top 5 (VC Basis) PVC-Only Flow Data (Source: EPA 2009 S114 Emissions Tests)

The rationale for establishing a low flow threshold accounts for the difference in 

technology used to control emissions. When using a thermal oxidizer, enough air is 

added to the device to combust the supplemental fuel gas and the incoming process 

vent emissions. This creates a large outflow volume of combustion byproducts and 

non-combustibles in the air (mostly nitrogen based) from the control device. The 

volume of this outflow depends primarily on the load of emissions being combusted, the 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 22 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

supplemental fuel type, and the design of the unit. In order to determine comparable 

emissions performance, the outflow volumes are standardized to the 3% oxygen 

content typical for what is considered good combustion efficiency in a thermal oxidizertype control device. Any uncombusted process vent emissions are then divided by the 

total outflow of combustion gases to determine their concentrations, which typically are 

in the single digits to tens ppm range. 

In a VGA-type device, there are no combustion gases to divide the uncaptured 

process vent emissions, so the concentrations will correspondingly be very high. In 

theory, the concentration of uncaptured process vent emissions from a VGA-type 

control device should be tens of thousands of ppm since there are no other gases to 

divide the process vent emissions by other than inert gases from system vacuum leaks. 

In reality, a small amount of absorber liquid is vaporized and emitted along with any 

unabsorbed process vent emissions and inerts. The volume of vaporized absorber 

liquid and inerts is simply not comparable to the volume of combustion gases from a 

thermal oxidizer, thus forcing any device that does not use combustion technology to be 

automatically out of compliance. The range of outlet flow of the top 5 facilities depicted 

in Figure 4 is 10.4 to 15.8 DSCMM. This is in stark contrast to the outlet flow range of 

the two Mexichem VGA units of 0.04 to 0.16 DSCMM. Because the VGA outlet flow is 

so low, 1 DSCMM would be an appropriate applicability threshold.

C. New Source Limits for Process Vents Should be Based on a Single 

Control Device for VC, THC, Dioxin, TOHAP and Separate Control Device 

for HCl

The Working Group is concerned by what appears to be a misapprehension in 

the rule about the capabilities of the control devices used in PVC facilities. Specifically, 

the use of different facilities to set the limits for individual HAPs appears to be based on

the unsubstantiated belief that plants have the ability to control certain HAPs individually 

in a thermal oxidizer. The data submitted in response to the 2009 Section 114 Request 

demonstrates that varying levels of VC and other organic HAPs in the control device 

emissions are a function of combustion efficiency in the firebox, the amount of auxiliary 

fuel used, and the process vent destruction load. A thorough analysis of these factors 

using the Section 114 emissions test data would shed light on what is feasible with 

these control devices in practice. 

Operational factors are significant for combustion efficiency, but it is the physical 

size and configuration of the firebox, along with the burner technology employed, that

drives combustion efficiency and emissions. For the PVC-combined category, the 

Westlake Geismar thermal oxidizer whose thermal input is 87 MM BTU/hr. set the new 

source limit for vinyl chloride, whereas the Dow Midland thermal oxidizer whose thermal 

input is 3 MM BTU/hr. set the new source limits for dioxin, TOHAP, and THC. Westlake 

Geismar’s thermal oxidizer is roughly 30 times larger than the Dow Midland thermal 

oxidizer, yet it must comply with process vent limits determined on a significantly 

smaller control device.

The two control devices can hardly be considered to be of like size and therefore 

should not be used to set the performance standard for the other, nor can these units be 
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 23 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

operationally adjusted to control one HAP over another. For reasons set forth in VI’s 

August 17, 2013 letter, the Working Group is recommending that the Dow control device 

not be used as a basis for the PVC-combined process vent category.26 On its face, a 

new source emission limit that was developed from various thermal oxidizer sizes, 

configurations, and burner technologies simply cannot reflect “the emission control that 

is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.”

Different considerations apply for HCl, which is a byproduct of combustion. HCl

is controlled with a separate control device (a scrubber) and emissions for this HAP can 

be adjusted through varying the operation of the scrubber.

The best performing facility’s thermal oxidizer performance data should be used 

to set the limits for new sources in order to reflect what is achieved in practice. The 

basis for determining which is the best performing control device should be what the 

control device was designed to control, namely vinyl chloride. On this basis, Table 13

was prepared to show how the limits for process vents can be determined for the 

respective categories. For PVC-only using Shintech Freeport data, there would be no 

change in the new source limits for organic HAP and hydrocarbons other than the VC 

correction as explained in Section D below. For PVC-combined using Westlake 

Geismar data, however, both the dioxin limit and the TOHAP limit increase as does the 

corrected VC. The detailed calculations are included as Attachment VII.

Table 13: New Source Process Vent Calculations Summary (Other than HCl)

Organic HAP & Hydrocarbon 

Limits Only

Final Rule New Source

Determination Basis

VI Proposed New Source 

Determination Basis

PVC-Only

Process Vent

Vinyl Chloride, ppmv 0.56 Shintech Freeport 3X DL 0.6(1) Shintech Freeport 3X DL

Dioxin, ng/dscm 0.038 Formosa Delaware 3X DL 0.038 Shintech Freeport 3X DL

Total Hydrocarbon, ppmv as C3 7 Shintech Freeport 99.0% UPL 7 Shintech Freeport 99.0% UPL

Total Organic HAP, ppmv 5.5 Shintech Freeport 3X DL 5.5 Shintech Freeport 3X DL

PVC-Combined

Process Vent

Vinyl Chloride, ppmv 0.56 Westlake Geismar 3X DL 0.6(1) Westlake Geismar 3X DL

Dioxin, ng/dscm 0.034 Dow Midland 3X DL 0.074 Westlake Geismar 99.0% UPL

Total Hydrocarbon, ppmv as C3 2.3 Dow Midland 3X DL 2.3 Westlake Geismar 3X DL

Total Organic HAP, ppmv 5.5 Dow Midland 3X DL 29 Westlake Geismar 99.0% UPL (1) This value is based on not including a ‘0’ value in determining the industry average detection limit, as explained below.

D. EPA Should Correct the Industry Average Vinyl Chloride Detection Limit

for Process Vents

In calculating the industry average detection limit for vinyl chloride process vents 

emissions using the 2009 and 2010 Section 114 Requests emissions testing data, EPA 

incorrectly substituted a zero value for the detection limit on the day where no data was 

reported due to a lab error reported for the vinyl chloride analyte by Formosa Point 

Comfort, Texas during the facility’s August 2, 2011 test run. When the zero value is not 

included, the three times method detection limit calculates to be 0.60 ppm for vinyl 

chloride, as detailed in Attachment VIII. 

 26 Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0561 at 7-11.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 24 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

IV. New Compliance Dates Are Needed

A. Uncertainty is Impacting Compliance Planning

As the Agency is aware, the industry has argued that some of the limits 

promulgated in the final rule constitute clear error. For example, the wastewater limit for 

existing area sources is based on an erroneous data point from equipment outside the 

PVCPU. Accordingly, continued delay in promulgating a reconsidered final rule raises

significant questions about the feasibility of complying with the current limits. 

Uncertainty about revisions to other limits ultimately means that industry members 

simply do not have enough information to design and implement new equipment, if 

needed.

For example, the Working Group believes that the stripped resin limits for 

existing sources are appropriate, and some producers may be able to meet the limits 

with less complicated retrofits while others will need to replace their strippers altogether. 

However, these limits were challenged in another party’s petition for reconsideration, 

which calls into question whether entirely new resin strippers may be required. 

Facilities are appropriately reluctant to invest in equipment upgrades to meet the limits 

in the final rule without knowing whether these changes will be sufficient after the 

reconsideration proceeding.

Some facilities have taken preliminary steps towards compliance, but remaining 

work could take years, depending on the outcome of the reconsideration process. For 

example, some facilities will need to install new wastewater strippers to meet the new 

requirements, but others may choose to refurbish an existing stripper since only minor 

improvements in their performance may be needed. The approach a facility takes 

depends completely on how much improvement in its current performance is needed. 

Without knowing the final limits, it is impractical to complete a design for either 

retrofitting or replacing equipment. Resin producers should not be required to expend 

resources on equipment or modifications that may in the end not be necessary, or 

worse, might be insufficient to meet an amended limit.

EPA must understand that the many different control devices within a PVC facility 

are all interdependent. The resin stripper recovers vinyl chloride and other analytes and 

remaining equilibrium amounts are recovered in the wastewater stripper and eventually

some sent to the process vent control device. A change in configuration of the resin 

stripper will necessarily change the required compliance at the wastewater stripper and 

thermal oxidizer. In the event that stripped resin limits do not change for existing source 

facilities, the uncertainty with what the final limits will be for wastewater strippers and 

process vents will cause challenges if those control devices must be redesigned to 

handle a new greater load from a reconfigured or replaced resin stripper. Consider as 

an example a situation where one site must replace its resin stripper to meet the final 

PVC MACT stripped resin limits. If that plant’s WW stripper is already operating at its 

full capacity, then changes must be completed to the WW stripper to accommodate the 

potentially increased load from the improved resin stripper operation. But that plant will 

not have any final performance parameters to reconfigure its WW stripper design to.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 25 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

It is unfair that PVC producers must be financially penalized by complying with 

one category of limits (e.g., stripped resins) at one date (April 15, 2015) while other 

inter-related downstream control device limits are corrected (wastewater strippers and 

process vents) with compliance at a future date, when the design firm handling plant 

retrofits for compliance needs to have the entire set of limits to use as its design basis 

for equipment configurations and construction, thereby preventing any economy of 

scale. More examples of specific impacts of uncertainty are presented in Attachment 

IX, “Examples of Major Issues of Concern with the Final PVC MACT Emission Limit 

Compliance Date of April 17, 2015.” Repeated shutdowns of resin plants to handle 

changing compliance in a fragmented manner is not only disruptive to that plant and its 

customer base, it also creates a very unsafe work environment. For example, shutting 

down the process vent to add in discharge lines from pressure relief devices is most 

efficiently accomplished during a plant-wide shutdown. Performing this while the plant 

is operating presents enormous challenges and safety considerations. 

B. Time Required for PVC Unit Projects

An example of the time required to design, fund, purchase, construct, startup, 

and permit a PVC resin stripper at the Westlake Chemicals Calvert City, Kentucky 

facility is shown in Table 14. This was a new stripper added to an existing unit to 

accommodate higher throughput rates. Start to finish, this project took 26 months, and 

it was completed during a slow period of construction activity and demand in 2006 

through 2008. 

Table 14: New Resin Stripper Installation, Westlake, KY

Timeframe Activity

Oct 2006 Column PFD development

Sep - Oct 2006 Instrument list and specification

Nov 2006 Column P&ID development

Apr 2007 Expansion scope complete

22 May 2007 Expansion AFE approved

Jun 2007 Column shell design spec sheet complete

July - August 2007 Tray evaluation

25 Sep 2007 Kick-off meeting with engineering firm for construction

11 Nov 2007 Tray drawings approved for construction

January - Feb 2008 Civil construction

15 Jan 2008 PO issued for column shell

31 Jan 2008 PO issued for column trays

Mar 2008 Tray installation at column manufacturer

March - May 2008 Auxiliary equipment deliveries (pumps, heat exchangers, etc.)

1 Apr 2008 Column delivery

April 1-15, 2008 Column insulated

15 Apr 2008 Column installed

May 2008 Piping design complete

19 May 2008 Structural steel complete

Sep 2008 Operator training

Nov 3-7, 2008 Plant shutdown for tie-ins (5d)

Nov 2008 Column commissioned
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 26 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

A second example is provided by Oxy Vinyls, LP in Attachment X that 

documents the time required from start to finish of between 18 to 21 months to retray an 

existing resin stripper column. A total of six PVC resin strippers were retrayed during its

2006 to 2010 stripper improvement project at the Pasadena, Texas plant pursuant to a 

consent decree. As Oxy Vinyls, LP notes in Attachment X, the need to fully replace a 

stripper, rather than retray the existing stripper, could significantly impact the time 

needed to complete the project. 

As a result of expanding supplies of low cost natural gas and associated light 

hydrocarbon liquid petrochemical precursors, the level of petrochemical construction 

activity is accelerating in the U.S. Gulf Coast region where many PVC producers are 

located. As shown in Figure 5, this is already dramatically increasing demand for 

skilled construction and craft workers as construction employment will increase some 

35% by 2016. This comes at a time when the PVC producers will be required to retrofit 

and improve their facilities to meet the new tighter emissions limits of the PVC MACT

and could extend completion times for these projects. 

Figure 5: Louisiana Workforce Commission – Workforce Development Task Force

C. New Compliance Date Recommendations

Based on the real examples outlined above, and given that the process 

construction industry is heavily booked through this time period, the Working Group 

believes significant time will be required to come into compliance. Decisions on the 

technological approach must be made significantly in advance of the compliance date.
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 27 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

The Working Group believes that compliance dates less than 24 months (for retrofits of 

existing equipment) or 36 months (for replacement of or add-ons to equipment) after the 

effective date of the reconsidered rule would be impracticable. 

V. Summary of Recommendations

The Working Group recognizes that it has proposed or raised a number of 

different possible approaches to address the issues raised on reconsideration. In order 

to assist and streamline the Agency’s review, we present below a summary of our 

recommendations on the approaches for revising the PVC MACT during the 

reconsideration:

A. New Source Suspension resin limits: 

1. Determine non-VC TOHAP limits for suspension resin on the basis of 

the best VC performer (Formosa Baton Rouge) per Attachment III;

B. Wastewater Limits:

1. Exclude Dow Midland data from wastewater calculations since it is not 

based on comparable source steam stripper technology; and

2. Determine vinyl chloride wastewater limits for existing sources (major 

and area) using 99% UPL based on 13-month vinyl chloride database

per Attachment IV; and one of the following options:

i. Establish separate non-VC TOHAP limit of 1,000 ppm similar to 

HON and MON; or

ii. Calculate non-VC TOHAP wastewater limits for existing PVC 

homopolymer sources (major and area) based on top 5 

performers for vinyl chloride (using 99% UPL, the Working 

Group calculated the limit to be 770 ppm; see Table 12 and 

Attachment III). Calculate non-VC TOHAP wastewater limits 

for existing PVC copolymer only operations (using 99% UPL, 

the Working Group calculated the limit to be 8,400 ppm; see 

Table 12 and Attachment V); or

iii. Calculate non-VC and non-soluble TOHAP wastewater limits for 

existing PVC homopolymer sources (major and area) based on 

top 5 performers for vinyl chloride (using 99% UPL and m=1, the 

Working Group calculated the non-VC and non-soluble TOHAP 

limit to be 45 ppm and the soluble limit (methanol & 

acetophenone) to be 1,100 ppm; see Table 11 and Attachment 

III). Calculate non-VC and non-vinyl acetate TOHAP 

wastewater limit for existing PVC VA copolymer only operations 

(using 99% UPL and m=1, the Working Group calculated the 

non-VC and non-vinyl acetate limit to be 340 ppm and the vinyl 

acetate TOHAP wastewater limit to be 38,000 ppm; see Table

11 and Attachment V).

C. Process Vent Limits
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 28 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

1. Exclude Dow Midland data from PVC-combined limit determination; 

and

2. Provide alternative mass-based compliance option for low flow control 

devices (below 1 DSCMM) using volume concentration limits 

converted to mass limits for all analytes (VC, THC, TOHAP, dioxin, and 

HCL) and using standardized flow as per Attachment VI; and

3. For new source limits for process vents (PVC only and PVC 

combined), use a single control device to determine the limits for VC, 

THC, TOHAP, and dioxin based on the best VC performer and set the 

HCl limit based on the facility with the best HCl performance as per 

Attachment VII; and

4. Correct Process Vent 3X DL to eliminate ‘0’ value in average 

determination, resulting in 0.60 ppm limit for vinyl chloride, as per 

Attachment VIII. 

D. Compliance Dates 

1. Establish new compliance dates 36 months after the effective date of 

the final reconsidered rule.

* * *

We appreciate the Agency’s willingness to include our supplemental data 

submissions in its determination of emissions limits. The explanations and analysis 

included in this letter were developed to aid the Agency’s understanding of the intricate 

and complicated operations of the industry and the steps needed to continue the 

industry’s record of year-over-year emissions reductions. We welcome an additional 

conference call or meeting with OAQPS personnel to go over the details of this 

document and its implications for the reconsideration of the PVC MACT rule. Please do 

not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, or require any additional 

information.

Sincerely, 

Richard P. Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

E-mail: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

Phone: 571-970-3392

Cell: 571-216-4474

cc: Penny Lassiter, EPA-RTP

Mark Kataoka, EPA-OCG

Jean-Cyril Walker, Keller and Heckman LLP
Reconsideration: PVC MACT Working Group Follow-Up to November 19 Conference Call 

Page 29 of 29

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-327

Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

Attachment Number Description

Attachment I Interactive Database for Daily Suspension Resin Grade TOHAP 

by Plant Using 2009 S114 Data

Attachment II Daily TOHAP Ranges for New Source Suspension Resins

Attachment III Non-VC TOHAP New Source Suspension Resin Limits 

Calculations

Attachment IV Determination of VC Wastewater Limit Using 13 Month Data Set

Attachment V Determination of Non-VC TOHAP Limit for Wastewater 

Attachment VI Conversion of Volume-Based Process Vent Limits to MassBased Limits and Standardized Flow Adjustment

Attachment VII New Source Process Vent Limit Calculations Using Single 

Control Device

Attachment VIII Correction of 3X Detection Limit for Vinyl Chloride Process Vent 

Emissions

Attachment IX Examples of Major Issues of Concern with the Final PVC MACT 

Emission Limit Compliance Date of April 17, 2015

Attachment X Oxy Vinyls, LP Resin Stripper Reconfiguration Project Time