Gina A. McCarthy

Assistant Administrator

Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460

August 17, 2011 ***Delivered via electronic mail***

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

Dear Ms. McCarthy:

On behalf of The Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group (Working Group), we would like to express our gratitude for the sho rt extension of the comment period and to commend the agency staff for their continuing diligence and professionalism.

The Working Group, together with many other members of the industry, recently filed

comments on EPA’s Proposed National Emission Standard s for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production . Reflecting the complexity of the industry sector and the corresponding regulation, the Working Group’s comments were in excess of 100 pages and accompanied by even more exten sive supporting attachments, including lengthy spreadsheet files with emissions analyses. This work could not have been completed without the

two

- week extension the agency granted. Our appreciation is enhanced by our recognition of the project management challenges this rulemaking presents in light of time and resource constraints facing the agency.

We commend the agency staff working on this matter, who have been diligent and professional. These individuals represented the agency well at the public hea rings in Houston and Baton Rouge. We are certain that the staff’s willingness to hear and critically question the Working Group’s initial assessment of the proposal was instrumental in reaching a common understanding of all stakeholder perspectives.

Giv en the depth of our comments and scope of needed revisions to the proposed rule, we expect that the agency staff will be taxed significantly in the coming months as they work tofinalize the PVC MACT rule by the Settlement Agreement date of January 13, 201 2, while

simultaneously preparing a separate rule for the ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer (EDC/VCM) sector of the vinyl industry as well as other chemical sector rules due out for comment November 2011. We urge EPA management to do its best in providing staff recognition and resource support as these rulemakings progress.

Although our comments are lengthy, our guiding principles are simple

– ensure that EPA has sufficient data on which to base a PVC MACT rule that satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and allows the industry to continue to produce the mix of products upon which its customers depend, both now and in an environmentally and economically vibrant future. As the agency is well aware, there are no conflicts i n these considerations because the legislative history makes it clear that the MACT provisions were not intended to prohibit production, but to ensure that emissions from production are properly limited based on the best performing facilities.

For your co nvenience, we enclose an executive summary of the key issues addressed in our comments. While we generally support the Agency’s approach to the rulemaking, the fact that not a single facility in the industry can meet the proposed limits for stripped resin dramatically illustrates the calculation and data selection challenges in developing the proposed MACT floors. Analogous issues appear with regard to process vents and wastewater, with yet additional aspects of the rule needing definition or revision to create a workable whole.

Understanding the constrained timeframe imposed on the Agency to prepare this proposal, and the brief time remaining to finalize the rule, the Working Group’s suggested changes are intended to address the most crucial issues. Be cause we have respected the statutory plan and the Agency’s framework with a conservative approach to the regulation of each potential hazardous air pollutant, a PVC MACT that incorporates the Working Group’s revisions will result in a final rule with sign ificantly lower permissible emission limits for vinyl chloride accompanied by new and stringent limits for other hazardous air pollutants that may be associated with the wide variety of resins produced across this industry. But a final rule without

these changes would fail to address the statutory mandate while simultaneously forcing every facility in the industry into noncompliance with unattainable standards.

We recognize that the changes we present in our comments will require the Agency’s

careful valid ation and implementation. Given the complexity and scope of our comments, the industry stands ready to provide clarification or assistance so that our comments are properly understood. Thank you for your continuing support.

Sincerely,

Allen Blakey

Enclosure

cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division Penny Lassiter, Associate Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Pr ograms Division Mark Kataoka, Office of the General Counsel Richard Krock, The Vinyl Institute

## T HE 

## V INYL 

## I NSTITUTE



### E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY OF 

### PVC MACT W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

### C OMMENTS



### N ATIONAL 

### E

MISSION 

### S TANDARDS FOR 

### H AZARDOUS 

### A IR 

### P OLLUTANTS FOR


### P OLYVINYL 

### C

HLORIDE AND 

### C OPOLYMERS 

### P RODUCTION



### I. I NTRODUCTION

The PVC MACT Working Group generally supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production , 76 Fed. Reg. 29,5 28 (May 20, 2011), Docket ID No.

EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2002

– 0037. 1 Working Group members have expended a significant amount of

money, man

- hours, and other resources, beginning as early as 2008 prior to the 2009 ICR, to collect and submit facility and process informa tion, as well as emissions, and resin sampling data in response to information requests issued pursuant to the Agency’s authority under section 114

of the CAA.

At all times, the primary goal of the Working Group has been to ensure that EPA has

sufficient d ata on which to base a PVC MACT rule that meets three fundamental prerequisites:

(1) Consistency with the mandates of the CAA and related legal precedents;

(2) Allows the PVC and copolymer industry to continue to produce the mix of products upon which its custom ers depend, both now and in the future; and

(3) Allows for U.S. manufacturers to grow their business and compete in a global

market.

There is no conflict in these prerequisites because the legislative history makes it clear that the MACT provisions were not intended to discontinue facility operation or to prohibit the continued manufacture of products, but to ensure that emissions from production are properly

limited. 2 Because more than 100 different PVC resins are produced annually by U.S. industry (and doz ens on a daily basis), the Working Group’s overarching goal has been to preserve this array of products specifically designed to meet longstanding customer requirements established

1 In addition to Vinyl Institute, Inc. (“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 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. Visit www.vinylinfo.org for

more information.

2 Senate Report (Environment and Public Works Committee) No. 101

- 228 , 1st Sess. at 168

- 169 (December 20, 1989) [To accompany S. 1630].to conform with hundreds of rigorous code body standards 3 while complying w ith the mandates

of the Act. This, in turn, requires production flexibility. Taking these prerequisites into consideration, the Working Group agrees that:

EPA proposes to address the appropriate emission points at PVC production units (“PVCPU”), includi ng process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, storage vessels, and stripped resin (although we recommend that with respect to process vents, EPA separate regulations applicable to thermal oxidizers from regulations applicable to absorbers);

The proposal f

ocuses on the appropriate hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”), including process related subsets of total organic HAPs (“TOHAPs”), vinyl chloride, and hydrogen chloride. The Working Group does not support the Agency efforts to set

numerical limits for dioxi n/furans. To the extent that it proceeds to do so the Agency should regulate these emissions through work practice standards.

The Part 61 NESHAP should no longer apply once facilities are in compliance with the final PVC MACT; however, the Agency should m ove all Part 61 referenced sampling methodologies to Part 63, and directly incorporate any other proposed Part

61 cross

- references into the final rule.

EPA’s determination that there are no technically or economically feasible “beyond

the

- floor” (“BTF”) op tions for the affected emission points is correct.

Consideration of process and emissions variability in setting MACT floors and subcategorization is needed and justified.

The proposed rule and our comments necessarily reflect the complexity of the product s and processes encompassed by this source category. The Agency’s proposal is a strong first step, but to satisfy the statutory criteria as interpreted by the courts and permit continued production of existing products, critical changes are needed. In co nsidering our comments and recommendations, please recognize that we employed the Agency’s general methodology for calculating MACT floors. Our suggested revisions reflect corrections in the Agency’s application of its methodology or determinations using new or more specific data inputs provided by industry.



### II. S UMMARY OF 

### K EY 

### I SSUES IN THE 

### P ROPOSED 

### R ULE

A. Stripped Resin Limits

Under the Agency’s proposed rule, residual vinyl chloride monomer (“RVCM”) limits in stripped PVC resin would decrease drastically from 400 parts per million (“ppm”) to 0.48 ppm for suspension resins, and from 2000 ppm to 55 ppm for dispersion resins produced at existing

3 Finished PVC products typically conform to material specifications for codes and standards organizations including American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) , ASTM International (“ASTM”), the National Sanitation Foundation (“NSF”), International Code Council (“ICC”), National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”), National Electrical Code (“NEC”), Underwriters Laboratory (“UL”), as well as other country and int ernational codes including Canadian Code bodies, and International Standards Organization (“ISO”).facilities. There were critical errors in the development of these limits, and all PVC production

process units 4 (PVC PUs) will be unable to comply with the proposed limits unless they are correctly recalculated. The vinyl chloride limit for stripped resin was developed using data obtained pursuant to Method 8260B, a method foreign to the PVC industry for resin testing; Method 8260B consistently underreports vinyl chloride concentration in resin. Yet the industry, according to the proposed rule, must demonstrate compliance using Method 107, which is more sensitive and accurate, and will consistently yield compliance samp ling results that exceed the proposed limits. In addition, dispersion resin limits should be based on measured concentration data and not calculated mass figures, just as EPA has done for suspension resin.

As an alternative, the Working Group submitted wi th its comments four years (2007

- 2010) of daily RVCM compliance averages. This information was collected, analyzed, and reported as required under the current Part 61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP. It is more reflective of the residual vinyl chloride levels in s tripped resin actually achieved by the industry than the snapshot provided by the 30

- day sampling data that EPA used to calculate the MACT floors in the proposed rule. The database is significantly large that use of the UPL statistical tool becomes

unnece ssary. Use of the four

- year data will satisfy the Agency’s obligation to use the best available data in setting the MACT floor for vinyl chloride. The best performing facility must meet the limit “every day and under all operating conditions,” which call s for 99.9 percentile basis for the daily limits.

In evaluating the feasibility of a pollutant

- by

- pollutant approach for stripped resin, the Working Group followed a more conservative approach than EPA. Rather than develop a daily Total HAP average as t he Agency had done, the Working Group first sought to develop average daily limits on a pollutant

- by

- pollutant basis. The TOHAP floor values for stripped resin should be recalculated in a manner to correctly use data from the best five performers.

EPA i s proposing to subcategorize PVCPUs into three subcategories: bulk resins, dispersion resins, and all other resin types for purposes of setting stripped resin limits. However, the equipment, process, and ingredients used to produce blending resins differ from all other types of PVC resins, including suspension resins. Thus for purposes of the stripped resin limits, blending resins and suspension resins should be separate subcategories under homopolymers. Furthermore, because copolymer resins are based on a different chemistry than homopolymers, copolymer PVCPUs should also be subcategorized by the following resin types: suspension, dispersion, blending and solution. Industry is resubmitting its 30

- day concentration database that

is reformatted to subcate gorize these additional products and grades.

When these corrections are applied, the calculated MACT floors are:

4 The only exception is the sole bulk resin facility, and as will quickly become apparent, solely because EPA correctly used Method 107 data. As the sole source in the category, EPA accepted their VCM NESHAP data as

MACT.Recalculated Stripped Resin Limits

Existing Sources New Sources

VCM Daily Limit (ppm) TOHAP

Limit* (ppm) VCM Daily

Limit (ppm) TOHAP L imit*

(ppm)

Suspension 38 130 7.3 73
Dispersion 1300 1900 480 310 Vinyl Acetate Copolymer** 790 2000 790 2000

Blending 140 3600 140 3600

* Limit would be a monthly average for the first 11 months following the implementation date of the rule and a 12

- month rolling average

thereafter. ** The Working Group did not calculate MACT floors for copolymers other then vinyl acetate copolymer.

B. Process Vents

The MACT floor for process vents should be recalculated using data from facilities that operated at rep resentative maximum operating conditions for PVC

- only production. Control

devices at co

- located facilities are designed with multiple times the thermal capacity in MM BTU/hr compared with those smaller units in operation at PVC

- only facilities, and regard less of the testing conditions, would not accurately represent any sort of operation for a PVC

- only production unit due to their sheer size differences.

Recovery devices should be excluded from the definition of control devices, distinguished separately over destructive control devices. EPA should develop separate limits

for absorber

- type stripper recovery devices that have zero dioxin/furan and low HCl and vinyl

chloride emissions.

EPA should not set numeric dioxin/furan standards for PVCPU process vent s because measurements below 0.1 ng/dscm are uncertain. EPA should set work practice requirements or adjust the dioxin/furan standard to account for measurement uncertainty.

EPA should not require annual performance testing. Stack testing frequency shou ld, as a maximum, be adjustable in a fashion similar to the Boiler and Process Heater MACT whereby facilities meeting compliance limits test less frequently up to a period of every 5 years.

A table of recalculated process vent MACT floors follows.

Recalcul ated Process Vent MACT Floors for Existing Sources

Regulated HAP 99% UPL MACT Floor

Emission Limit Vinyl Chloride 16.98 10* Hydrogen chloride (ppm) 140.66 141 Total organic HAP (ppm) 47.12 48

THC 12.64 13 CDD/CDF (TEQ) (ng/dscm) 0.019 0.021**

* UPL value was lowered to existing limit.

** Any number below 0.1 should be treated as being uncertain because the limits of quantitation below that level are uncertain. Accordingly, work practice standards should be set at this level.C. Wastewater Limitations

Wastewater floor limits must be recalculated to use actual sampling data and test data reflecting actual operating conditions. EPA should use industry’s 2008 data base provided by the VI for vinyl chloride concentration in stripped wastewater to set MACT floor. Industry calculates the floor at 0.48 ppm VC using this data whereas EPA is proposing 0.11 ppm VC.

Maintenance wastewater streams should be regulated independently of in

- process wastewater. The capture of maintenance wastewater emissions is infeas ible and thus warrants use of a work practice standard. EPA needs to clarify which in

- process wastewater streams require control and treatment by clearly defining them at point of determination and not at their proposed point of generation. EPA must prov ide exemptions for certain safety

- related streams such as safety showers.

D. Heat Exchange Systems

The heat exchange system limits are the most stringent of any EPA rule promulgated to date and are unwarranted for this industry. Recycled and other make

- up water should not be regulated as leaks. Method 107 should be allowed for measuring compliance of cooling tower water because it can be performed on

- site and the results obtained quickly and accurately; other compliance test methods may take days to get re sults, thereby foregoing the benefit altogether of

a test for leaks.

E. Product Range Considerations

As the Agency reviews the Working Group’s comments, and those of the broader regulated community, it is important to recognize the wide range of vinyl pol ymers and copolymers produced by the industry. As a general matter, PVC and copolymer resins are not like most of the commodity chemicals and other product manufacturing processes the Agency has regulated under the MACT framework. In many instances, res in recipes have been specifically formulated to meet a series of customer material specifications. These specifications relate not only to the properties and performance characteristics of the ultimate product ( compare pipes and fittings, windows, doors, medical applications, wires and cables, and automotive upholstery, etc.), but also to the machinery and processes used to manufacture these products. As a result, PVCPUs must constantly monitor and adjust a complex combination of process parameters and pr oduct characteristics to ensure that the finished resin meets customer specifications which have been established in order that their finished products conform to rigorous standards by organizations. Changing resin morphology to meet emissions limits coul d have unintended consequences of an unexpected product reformulation by an end user.

F. Automatic Violations

Five new instances of automatic violations are proposed. EPA should recognize safety of operation as a top priority, revise and streamline the affi rmative defense to allow its use for practical operating situations, and acknowledge work practices already in place to continue the strict reporting of releases that industry already complies with.

### III. C ONCLUSION

This summary only highlights some of the key points; a careful review of our entire comments and the attachments is needed to capture all of the important topics. While various portions of the rule have been discussed separately for purposes of logical presentation, it must be recognized that each manufacturing facility in the PVC and copolymers source category is an integrated and interdependent sum of its various operations. Facilities do not consist of fungible, modularized parts; replacing or modifying one process or technology may compromise t he integrity of the entire facility in the absence of careful, facility

- wide evaluation and adjustment. A holistic view must be maintained in establishing regulatory limits and compliance parameters. Our comments collectively support a comprehensive and rationale approach to finalizing a strong

MACT standard.

The statutory framework helps ensure that the PVC and copolymer industry can continue to produce the mix of products upon which its customers depend, both now and in the future, and

allows for U.S. m anufacturers to grow their business and compete in a global market. The changes we request are consistent with this directive.

4849

- 1944

- 0906, v. 2