### MEMORANDUM

TO: Voluntary Program Participants

FROM: Samantha Lewis, EPA

DATE: October 24, 2006

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes for the EPA and Trade Group Discussion on the Proposed Voluntary VCM Site Program

EPA met with The Vinyl Institute (VI), The American Chemistry Council (ACC), and several member companies on Tuesday, Octobe r 10, 2006, to discuss the industry’s proposed voluntary program for vinyl chloride facilities. The list of attend ees can be found in Appendix A. Appendix B shows the slides fo r industry’s presentation.

The meeting followed the agenda below:

• Introduction;

• Presentation of proposal;

• Discussion; and

• Next Steps.

The meeting is summarized below:

Introduction

Mr. Frank Borelli of VI started the m eeting by introducing the proposed voluntary program. The program will include 13 vinyl chloride manufacturing facilities:

1. Dow Chemical, Freeport, TX;

2. Dow Chemical, Plaquemine, LA;

3. Formosa Plastics, Baton Rouge, LA;

4. Formosa Plastics, Point Comfort, TX;

5. Georgia Gulf, Lake Charles, LA;

6. Georgia Gulf, Plaquemine, LA;

7. OxyChem, Ingleside, TX;

8. OxyVinyls, Deer Park, TX;

9. OxyVinyls, LaPorte, TX;

10. PPG, Lake Charles, LA;

11. Shintech, Plaquemine, LA;

12. Westlake, Calvert City, KY; and

13. Westlake, Geismar, LA.

These 13 facilities account for 97 pe rcent of vinyl chloride manufacturers in the U.S. The VI decided to focus the program on vinyl chloride manufacturers because industry suspects that the2 oxyhydrochlorination (OHC) process to produce ED C is the largest dioxin source in the CCH manufacturing segments. The program initially atte mpted to isolate the OHC process. However, the VI determined that it was not possible to isol ate OHC streams at all faci lities and decided that the program will view the facili ties as a whole. Therefore, the program will also include discharges from chlor-alkali operations at these sites (85 percent of U. S. chlor-alkali production according to industry), as well as discharges from other chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing processes on site.

The VI used the Integrated Pollution Prevention and C ontrol (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the La rge Volume Organic Chemical Industry as the basis for the voluntary proposal. 1 The document identifies a BAT concen tration of 0.1ng /L TEQ for dioxin congeners in EDC wastewater. This concentrat ion was based on an EDC plant in Germany that discharges 1μg TEQ per ton of OHC capacity.

Voluntary Proposal

Mr. John Westendorf of OxyChem presen ted the Voluntary Proposal. Under the voluntary program, the thirteen sites will agree to achieve dioxin and furan discharges of 0.1 ng/L TEQ on a collective basis. This means that the aver age discharge for the thirteen facilities will be equal to or less than 0.1 ng/L TEQ. Ms. Mary Bachynsky of Formosa Plastics explained that setting limits for each facility to meet this goal will consist of a two-step process:

• Industry will establish the baseline discharges. Some facilities have extensive dioxin monitoring data that they can use to set a baseline. Other facilities will need to conduct sampling to determine their baseline discharges.

• Industry will determine the necessary reductions for each facility.

To convert the 0.1 ng/L TEQ into mass limits, industr y will define a facilit y flow rate consisting of dry-weather discharges of process streams. In addition to wastewater streams from manufacturing processes, VI would like to include:

• Scrubber water from combustion units – A ccording to Mr. Westendorf, this is a

known source of dioxin at several EDC/ VCM plants but was excluded from the EU BAT; and

• Cooling tower blowdown – Mr. Jason Campbe ll of PPG stated that this can be a

source of dioxin if facilitie s add chlorine to the coo ling tower for disinfection.

Industry’s goal is to capture all streams that potentially contain dioxin. VI will develop a definition for process wastewat er for discussion with EPA.

1 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Cont rol (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Large Volume Organic Chemical Industry can be accessed online at http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FActivities.htm.3 Mr. Campbell stated that industry woul d like EPA to stop work on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rulemaking proces s as an incentive for the voluntary program.

Facilities are concerned about th e level of effort required to co mplete the questionnaire. In addition, industry would like EPA to stop any ad ditional sampling episodes since this is also

burdensome for the facilities.

Mr. Westendorf added that the sampling conducted under the volunt ary program may be superior to the EPA sampling trips because sampli ng will occur over a longer period of time. Mr.

Westendorf stated that the one-week CCH sa mpling episodes conducted by EPA do not account for long-term variations. EPA w ould receive sampling data from a ll 13 facilities, rather than the limited number of facilities in the EPA sampling program. The dioxin discharges and reductions that result from the voluntary program will be reflected in the facili ties’ annual TRI reports.

Mr. Westendorf also stated that the timeline for the voluntary program will be faster than the schedule for the ELG proce ss. Industry’s goal is to im plement the voluntary program by 2011. VI will be responsible for implementing the program. The CCH ELG process is currently scheduled to go final in 2011. However, the fina l ELGs will not be incorporated into permits for a few years. Mr. Bob Elam of ACC added that the voluntary program ensures that something will be implemented to control dioxin discharges for this industry. If EPA moves forward with the ELG process and is unable to justify an ELG, then nothing will be implemented.

Discussion

Ms. Mary Smith, Director of the Engineeri ng and Analysis Division, provided her initial reaction to the proposal. Ms. Smith stated that it is clear that a lot of work has been done to develop this proposal. However, there are several details that require further development. If EPA were to agree to a voluntary program, EPA would need to provide the basis for the decision in the 2008 ELG Proposal by:

• Demonstrating that industry is using new practices to achieve reductions under the voluntary program;

• Showing that the program is verifiable;

• Explaining the methodology of averagi ng discharges from 13 facilities;

• Addressing concerns of potenti al geographical “hot spots” that may result from the averaging method;

• Showing that the voluntary program timeline will be implemented sooner than EPA’s ELG schedule; and

• Defining the scope to show that the program will cover most of the scope of the CCH ELG rulemaking.4 Ms. Jan Goodwin of EPA led the following discussion between EPA and industry representatives:

How frequently will facilities be required to monitor their dioxin discharges? Industry has not yet developed mon itoring requirements for the program.

Once industry reaches the goal of 0.1 ng/L TEQ, will facilities continue to reduce dioxin discharges? Mr. Campbell stated that f acilities are constantly eval uating and looking to reduce discharges that they report to TRI. As a resu lt, he expects that reductions will continue to

occur on their own.

What is the incentive for compliance? Other plants involved in the pr ogram will pressure f acilities to maintain compliance with their discharges. Industry believes that this “peer pressure” will pr ovide incentive. In addition, if EPA determines that facilities ar e not complying with the voluntary program, EPA could always resume the ELG rulemaking effort.

Will facilities conduct samplin g of individual process streams? Will there be a focus on treating at the most concentrated poin t? EPA is concerned that dioxin may be

diluted at the facilities’ outfalls. Mr. Campbell replied that facilities will most likely need to conduct upstream sampling to

determine where it will be most economical to install treatment technologies. Mr. Borelli added that the purpose of the voluntary progr am is to achieve a certain level of performance – not to identify process sources of dioxin.

What data will be used for determining baseline discharges? Mr. Westendorf stated that industry will need to develop a set of criteria for data that will be used to develop baseline loads. Industry will develop a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) that outlines the criteria, which will include the following at a minimum:

− Analytical method used; and

− Detection level criteria.

Next Steps and Further Issues

Following the discussion, EPA and industry representatives agreed to the following schedule for deliverables and next steps:

• 18 October 2006 – Conference call to discu ss definition of process wastewater;

• 20 October 2006 – Finalize defini tion of process wastewater;

• 15 November 2006 – Provide a rationale fo r excluding PVC facilities from the voluntary program;5 • 01 December 2006 – Provide target reducti on for list of faci lities and formal proposal; and

• 15 January 2007 – Provide QAPP for baseline development data.

In addition to the above list of deliverables, EP A identified the following unresolved issues from the discussion of the voluntary proposal:

• The program has not established requirements for monitoring frequency.

• The program needs to address the issue of potential “hot spots.” If the group of 13 facilities is collectively held to achieve an average discharge of 0.1 ng/L TEQ, then some facilities will discharge more than 0.1 ng/L TEQ and some facilities will discharge less. If the faci lities discharging more than 0.1 ng/L TEQ are located in the same area, some regions may receive a disproportionate amount of the load.

• EPA is concerned that dioxin will be dilu ted at the final outfall, which is the proposed monitoring location for the voluntary program.

• The program does not address other pollutant s, such as mercury discharges from mercury cell chlor-alkali plants.

• EPA requests a description of the roles that VI, ACC, EPA, and member facilities will play in the program development.Appendix A

Meeting Attendance Record for October 10, 2006Appendix B

Presentation Slides for Voluntary Program Proposal