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 In stitute (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 t he 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 e mission 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 t o 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 Tr affic 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 custo mer 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 agent s 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 polymeriz ation 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 enforc eable 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 varia bility 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 EPAPage 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 i ndustry, 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?

I I. Da ta 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 l ist 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 Ci tizen Suit , 74 Fed. Reg. 58,955 (November 16, 2009) We noted that those issues of concern that are identified now bu t 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 cal culations 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. Apparentl y, 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. H aving 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 Re quest instructions did not addre ss treatment of non

- detects. The
PVC industry requests clarification on how EPA intended to consistently treat report ed 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 int end 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 1 14 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 plan ts 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 non

P VC 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, w hich 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 curren tly 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 mon ths 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 marke t, 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 req uested 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 ot her 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 discuss ion 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