Page 1 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

August 16, 2010

Ms. Jodi Howard

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

Sector Policies and Program Divisions 

Coatings and Chemicals Group 

Mail Code: E143-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE: August 24, 2010 Meeting with Vinyl Institute (VI) Members to Clarify Data 

Submissions in Response the Section 114 Request for the PVC MACT Rule

Dear Ms. Howard,

The Vinyl Institute and its members appreciate and look forward to the opportunity of 

meeting with you and other staff members of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(“EPA” or “Agency”) on August 24, 2010, to discuss the Agency’s forthcoming 

promulgation of a maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standard for the 

polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) and copolymer source category under the Clean Air Act 

(hereinafter, “PVC MACT”). As you know, the PVC industry recently completed an 

extensive and detailed information survey within a significantly compressed timeframe, 

provided volumes of requested data, and completed numerous and costly emission 

tests in response to an information collection request issued pursuant to the Agency’s 

Clean Air Act section 114 authority (hereinafter, “114 Request”).1

Specifically, VI intends to cover the following issues during the August 24 meeting at 

EPA’s Research Triangle Park campus:

 Our purpose for 

requesting this meeting is to clarify the information submitted in response to the 114 

Request, and in particular, to develop a path forward for addressing any discrepancies 

or data gaps with supplemental information.

 1 As we have previously advised, EPA did not obtain OMB approval for this request, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812, codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. This constitutes a complete defense for any facility’s 

alleged failure to comply fully with the request, and was not waived by the industry’s response to the request. See Center for 

Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 244 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also Saco River Cellular, Inc. v. F.C.C., 

133 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Page 2 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

I. Process Chemistry Variations

As you are no doubt aware, process chemistry for resin grades can vary significantly 

from one resin manufacturer to another, and even within similar resin grades produced 

by a single manufacturer, depending on customer processing, applications and 

performance requirements. Variations in resin chemistry stem from a host of different 

components or ingredients used to make the various grades or types of PVC resin 

including, but not limited to: 

• Primary dispersing agents for proper monomer droplet size;

• Secondary dispersing agents for controlling agglomeration of polymerized 

particles;

• Buffer agents for pH control of the solution;

• Free radical chain initiators to start the polymerization;

• Shortstop to terminate polymerization at optimal conversion;

• Antioxidants to prevent formation of undesirable peroxides;

• Internal reactor coatings to facilitate closed cycle cleanings; and

• Anti-static agents to prevent agglomeration of dry resin.

While the PVC industry already has enforceable and practical emissions controls in 

place, the broad variability in hazardous air pollutant (HAP) profiles, as seen in the 

section 114 submittals, is likely the result of the type of resin being produced and its 

unique recipe, and not necessarily the applied control technology or polymerization 

process, particularly at facilities that manufacture different grades and types of PVC 

resin. In other words, an individual HAP may not be detected at 4 out of 5 facilities 

simply because it is not part of the facilities’ process chemistry, but that individual HAP 

may be detected at the fifth facility because its resin manufacturing recipe includes that 

chemistry. The D.C. Circuit previously recognized that a MACT floor can be established 

to address such variability in the industry,2

 2 See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

and the VI seeks to understand how EPA 
Page 3 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

proposes to approach this issue this time around, and what additional data might be 

needed to support such variability. Specifically:

1. Would the facilities that do not emit a particular HAP in the preceding example 

constitute the best 5 performing sources for purposes of establishing the MACT 

floor?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is “yes,” the unintended result would be 

to impose significant restrictions or a prohibition on the single manufacturer who, 

responding to particular customer requirements, must use unique process 

chemistry. We need to understand EPA’s strategy to consider and provide for 

variability in unique process chemistry.

3. What additional information will EPA need from industry, if any, to be able to 

address unique process chemistry? 

4. How will EPA establish the MACT floor for a particular HAP? Will EPA simply 

calculate the floor using the lowest emissions reported for an individual HAP

across the range of submissions? How does EPA intend to reconcile emitting 

units that may appear to be the “best performer” for some HAPs but not others? 

5. Will EPA examine the data to identify possible surrogates? Or will EPA take a 

broader approach for total VOC or HAP emissions?

II. Data Consistency and Interpretation

As VI noted in its comments on the proposed settlement agreement in Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, No. 1:08-cv-01803 (D.D.C.),3 which set the 

rulemaking schedule for the PVC MACT, the analysis of the extended list of HAPs 

required as part of the 114 Request was new to the industry and its product mix, and 

was expected to raise additional technical issues that may affect the underlying 

rulemaking.4

 3 Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 74 Fed. Reg. 58,955 (November 16, 2009)

 We noted that those issues of concern that are identified now but not fully 

resolved before the Agency publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) 

4 Docket Document ID Number EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0848- 0004.1.
Page 4 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

should be identified in the NPRM prior to promulgation of the final rule. It is the PVC 

industry’s goal, however, to resolve all of these issues before the NPRM is published, 

and to that end we wish to identify the following concerns with the PVC resin sampling 

effort and control device emissions testing, as examples, and request guidance from the 

Agency on how to provide meaningful supplemental information:

1. The calculations used to report pounds per day on a dry basis for the various 

resin streams are inconsistent, due to lack of specific instructions in the test 

reporting request. 

2. The methods used to detect and measure HAPs in resin are inconsistent. 

Apparently, the Agency approved inconsistent test methods proposed by various 

industry respondents, and we are inquiring whether EPA has a validated method 

for normalizing the results between the various methods, or are the various 

methods satisfactory and why? 

3. Having anticipated the possibility that results from different contract sampling 

companies and laboratories might vary, the PVC industry undertook the task of 

developing validation processes for more appropriate test methods, which is 

nearing completion.5

4. The 114 Request instructions did not address treatment of non-detects. The 

PVC industry requests clarification on how EPA intended to consistently treat 

reported non-detects in order to eliminate any significant variation in how test 

data for resins and control device emissions are computed.

 Would EPA consider the proposed test protocol and any 

supplemental data provided from it?

5. How does EPA intend to deal with non-detects in calculating the MACT floor? 

6. Depending on the answer to question 5, deviations from EPA procedures for 

establishing HAP detection levels can have significant impact on the floor and 

should be identified for each test lab. Given the number of non-detects reported 

for both the resin samples and stack test information, how does EPA intend to 

deal with anomalies in test lab detection limits? 

 5 November 2, 2009 letter from Richard Krock, Vinyl Institute to Jody Howard, EPA, concerning PVC MACT Resin Testing 

Program Pursuant to Section 114 Letters, Vinyl Institute (VI) Working Group.
Page 5 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

7. Data reporting may not be consistent. At least one company reported 

concentrations of HAPs instead of pounds per day, dry estimated emissions. 

Also, during control device tests, some PVC plants with contiguous non-PVC 

operations have combined gas streams that were able to be isolated for their 

PVC only emissions tests, while others with contiguous non-PVC operations 

were not. How does EPA propose to eliminate or prevent the inclusion of nonPVC facility operations when attempting to properly characterize control device 

emissions? 

8. Will EPA consider an alternative data base that is based on the actual resin 

sampling concentrations, rather than relying on the pounds per day, dry 

reporting, which were calculated inconsistently? The predominant number of 

PVC facilities used consistent sampling points to obtain HAP concentrations in 

the resin slurry, which should serve as the basis for further normalization of 

emissions calculations. As currently reported, however, the pounds per day, dry 

data does not provide a basis for proper interpretation across the PVC industry or 

calculation of the MACT floor. 

9. In order to comply with EPA’s court ordered timetable, tests were conducted 

during winter months when seasonal demand for PVC resins is low. What are 

EPA’s plans to account for seasonal variances in production during the reporting 

period, since the 114 Request has not specifically addressed what could be 

emitted during peak periods of demand, and how will EPA correspondingly make 

allowances for the PVC industry to operate in compliance during those periods of 

high demand? 

10.Regarding future export and US PVC resin production needs, how does EPA 

plan to account for the unique products from new PVC Units that are currently 

under construction but have not started up yet or future production changes at 

existing PVC Units (i.e., data that was not available for the section 114 collection) 

so that US producers stay competitive in today’s global PVC market, while 

maintaining MACT compliance?
Page 6 of 6

1737 King Street, Suite 390 ●Alexandria, VA 22314 ●(571) 970-3359●Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org ●www.vinylindesign.com

III. EPA Questions

The PVC industry continues to receive requests from the Agency for information that 

was originally not specifically required under the 114 Request. One recent example is 

the Agency’s August 9, 2010 request for industry’s resin sampling and testing reports. 

Some respondents originally submitted this as supplemental information to assist the 

Agency in understanding some of the complexity involved with calculating the pounds 

per day, dry emissions requested by EPA. Other respondents did not submit the 

information because it was not specifically required. The entire PVC industry would like 

to respond to all of the Agency’s questions and concerns and to any foreseen need for 

supplemental information or interpretation of data or information already provided so 

that EPA has a consistent and sound basis for developing the PVC MACT regulation. 

IV. Conclusion

The PVC industry looks forward to reviewing these issues with the Agency on August 

24, 2010 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm. Like you, we are concerned about the amount of work 

necessary to address these data inconsistencies and understand their impact on 

development of the MACT standard in the short time period before the NPRM is issued. 

Given the number of other outstanding issues, however, we trust the Agency will be 

available for follow up meetings or conference calls shortly after the meeting on August 

24. In any event, we trust EPA will continue to be receptive to additional data 

submission and/or discussion to ensure that the final PVC MACT is comprehensive and 

uncontroversial. Should you have any questions before our meeting, or at any other 

time, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, 

Richard P. Krock

Technical Director

e-mail: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

phone: 571-970-3392

cell: 571-216-4474