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 short 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 Standards 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 extensive 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 hearings 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. 

Given 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 to 
finalize the PVC MACT rule by the Settlement Agreement date of January 13, 2012, 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 in 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 convenience, 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. Because 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 significantly 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 validation 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 Programs Division

Mark Kataoka, Office of the General Counsel

Richard Krock, The Vinyl Institute
THE VINYL INSTITUTE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PVC MACT WORKING GROUP COMMENTS

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR 

POLYVINYL CHLORIDE AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

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. 29,528 (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 information, 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 data 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 customers 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 dozens 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 standards3 while complying with 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”), including 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 focuses 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 dioxin/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 move 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 “beyondthe-floor” (“BTF”) options 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 products 

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 considering 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. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IN THE PROPOSED RULE

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 international 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 units4 (PVCPUs) 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 sampling 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 with 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 stripped 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 

unnecessary. 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 calls 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 the 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 is 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 subcategorize 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 Limit* 

(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 representative 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 regardless 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 vents 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 should, 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.

Recalculated 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 infeasible 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 provide 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 results, 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 polymers 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, resin 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 product 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 could 

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 affirmative 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. CONCLUSION

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 the 

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. manufacturers to grow their business and compete in a global market. The 

changes we request are consistent with this directive.

4849-1944-0906, v. 2