October 24, 2012

Sent via Electronic Mail and Fedex 

Ms. Andrea Siefers

Environmental Engineer, Refining and Chemicals Group

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

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code: E143-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Siefers.Andrea@epa.gov

RE: Follow Up Comments on Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Process 

Wastewater Section 114 Sampling and Analysis, and Information Request

Dear Ms. Siefers:

The Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group1 appreciated the opportunity to comment 

on and discuss EPA’s draft “Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Process Wastewater 

Section 114 Sampling and Analysis, and Information Request” (hereinafter, “114 

Request”). As you and your colleagues requested during our October 18, 2012

conference call, the Working Group provides additional insight into two key aspects of 

our October 15, 2012 written comments and subsequent discussion:

1) It is Infeasible to Begin Sampling before January 2013, or to Submit the 

Sampling and Analysis Report Before May 1, 2013

Industry continues to propose that sampling should begin early in January 2013, 

likely no later than January 7. As was evident from the resin data collection 

conducted for the PVC MACT in 2009 & 2010, sampling in the 4th calendar quarter 

will likely yield data that is not representative of our facilities’ normal operating 

conditions. This is because the time period from the end of October to the end of the 

year typically is a period of low industry production rates. Several well known factors 

account for this low activity, including planned facility shutdowns due to low product 

demand and the seasonal holidays. In addition, it has been the industry’s 

experience that sampling is difficult during this time frame because laboratories are 

 1 The PVC MACT Working Group includes Vinyl Institute members (Shintech Inc., Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., 

Occidental Chemical Company /Oxy Vinyls, LP, Westlake Chemical Corporation, and PolyOne Corporation) and other PVC and 

Copolymer producers including Georgia Gulf Corporation and The Dow Chemical Company.
Page 2 of 6

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com

short-staffed due to the holidays. We would also note that it takes time to identify 

and contract with laboratories that have the requisite expertise, including 

NELAC/State certifications, to perform all of the methods required by the 114 

Request. This is especially true for EPA Method 8315A for aldehydes. The 

approximately two month period between the time EPA issues the 114 Request and 

the beginning of sampling in early January is critical for contracting with qualified 

laboratories.

EPA expressed their concern that complete sampling results with quality assurance 

assessments could not be submitted by the end of March 2013. The Working Group 

appreciates the Agency’s concerns about this schedule, which appear to stem from 

the order in PolyOne Corp. v. EPA,

2 holding challenges to the PVC MACT rule in 

abeyance until December 13, 2013. Specifically, the court directed the parties to file 

motions to govern future proceedings in these cases “within 30 days of the 

completion of the agency proceedings, but no later than December 13, 2013.” 

Assuming that an “agency proceedings” includes a 60-day comment period, this 

would provide EPA with over four months or until September 13, 2013 to issue a 

proposed rulemaking. As we discussed during our conference call, the Working 

Group would be willing to consider a modification of the abeyance schedule should 

the need arise, but such a modification at this juncture is speculative and premature.

Other factors should also be weighed. First, the process wastewater sampling 

required under the 114 Request will be confined to TOHAP concentrations from 

wastewater stripper bottoms (or alternative steam stripping treatment systems) 

streams as they leave the PVCPU. Thus we are not aware of any reason why the

derivation of an amended treated process wastewater TOHAP limit should require 

more than two or three months to calculate and review, given the specific 

submission format specified by the Agency.

In addition, the Agency indicated during our conference call that it expects to issue 

the 114 Request at the end of October 2012, and it apparently will require more 

rigorous data review and validation procedures than was required for the previous 

114 Request in this rulemaking. The Working Group agrees that thorough data 

validation is necessary as a quality assurance step to ensure the data provided to 

the agency is accurate, reliable, and consistently developed among industry resin 

producers. However, enhanced quality assurance activities require additional time 

to complete, and require additional time for any re-sampling activities that may be 

needed as a result of the quality review. Indeed, the Working Group’s May 1 

 2 No. 12-1260 (D.C. Circuit Oct. 10, 2012) (consolidated with 12-1263, 12-1265, 12-1266, 12-1267).
Page 3 of 6

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com

submission date anticipated such a step, expecting that any quality review and 

possible re-sampling would take approximately four weeks following receipt of the 

full laboratory reports, which are typically complete and available 3 to 4 weeks after 

the final sample has been analyzed.

For these reasons, the Working Group continues to believe that May 1, 2013, is a 

reasonable time frame for submitting the final 114 Request sample reports. As we 

discussed, this timing also is needed in order to allow adequate time for those 

producers with intermittent batch wastewater stripper operations to collect samples 

representative of 30 days of normal operations. Moreover, we would expect that 

EPA and the Working Group will meet to discuss the sufficiency and validity of data 

to be used during the PVC MACT reconsideration, which should provide sufficient 

time to discuss a modification to the abeyance schedule, if needed.

2) EPA Needs to Clarify the Scope and Mechanism for Additional Quality 

Assessment Review of the Sample Reports

During our conference call, the Agency indicated that the final 114 Request would 

require some form of certification, perhaps through the seal of a Professional 

Engineer (“PE”), to ensure that a thorough quality assessment (“QA”) was performed 

on the data submitted to EPA. As a threshold matter, the Working Group notes that 

the PVC MACT rulemaking record clearly demonstrates that the industry has, within 

the timing constraints allotted, conducted a thorough ongoing review of all data 

submitted to the Agency. Given the timing constraints and the sheer quantity of the 

data, it was simply impossible to fully eliminate errors or inconsistencies, but the 

Working Group notified EPA and corrected such issues as soon as they were 

discovered. 

As such, the Working Group generally agrees with the Agency’s desire for a quality 

assurance review, and indeed, has provided for such a review in its data submission 

schedule. However, EPA must recognize that the steps necessary for a quality 

assurance review require additional time. Furthermore, the Agency must recognize 

that its own staff and contractors need a sufficient amount of time and rigor to 

ensure the correct use of appropriate data and to review their calculations in deriving 

emission limitations. 

With regard to the currently undefined quality assessment certification, the devil is in 

the details, and the Working Group cannot agree to an additional certification on QA 

reviewers that imposes the certification required of responsible corporate officers, 

including criminal liability under Title 18. Such a certification is not appropriate for 

personnel performing a non-managerial function and, in any event, is duplicative of 
Page 4 of 6

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com

the more common certifications by responsible corporate officials typically required 

by EPA.

We also do not believe that a PE-level review is warranted or indeed, feasible. First, 

many PVC plants do not have a state-licensed chemical engineer PE on staff. Thus, 

a PE-certification of the 114 Request would require use of a corporate PE, if 

available, or a subcontractor. Neither PE is likely to have day-to-day familiarity with 

PVC operations sufficient to provide a meaningful check on sampling activities. In 

addition, use of a contractor would essentially impose an additional expense to 

address issues that arose previously in this rulemaking because of unrealistic timing 

constraints imposed during sampling and historical data collection activities. More 

importantly, accredited labs are required to follow precise procedures specified in 

analytical methods, and any deviations must be noted and agreed upon by the 

sample provider before completing the analysis. 

Accordingly, the Working Group suggests that, if additional QA confirmation is 

required, the 114 Request should instruct the responsible corporate officer to 

designate a project manager at each PVC site who will be responsible for reviewing 

the sampling program and survey submissions. The project manager will likely be a 

senior technical contact from each facility who has worked with analytical laboratory 

data, is familiar with the day-to-day facility operations, and can be relied upon to 

assure the sampling and survey response program is accomplished in accordance 

with the 114 Request. The final data submission to the EPA could include a memo

from the project manager indicating adherence to a specific checklist on the steps 

performed to monitor and perform a QA review on the site sampling and survey

program.

The Vinyl Institute and its PVC MACT Working Group appreciated the opportunity to 

discuss and comment on the EPA’s draft Section 114 Request. For your convenience, 

we include a list of the issues we agreed during our call that the Agency would address 

before finalizing the 114 Request.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Richard P. Krock

Technical Director

e-mail: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

phone: 571-970-3392

Cell: 571-216-4474
Page 5 of 6

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com

CC: Ms. Penny Lassiter, EPA-RTP

Mr. Mark Kataoka, EPA-OCG

JC Walker, Keller and Heckman

Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

Attachments: Attachment A
Page 6 of 6

The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970-3392 Fax (571) 970-3271 

www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com

Attachment A

General Follow up Items for EPA from Conference Call Review of PVC MACT Working 

Group Comments on CAA Section 114 Request Memo Regarding Summary of Test 

Procedures, Methods, and Reporting Requirements For Process Wastewater Sampling 

and Analysis at Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer Facilities, Draft October 3, 2012

In addition to the detailed comments listed on the VI PVC MACT Working Group 

comments response to the Agency on October 15, 2012, there were several general 

comments for which the Industry requests responses following the October 18, 2012 

conference call, as listed here for convenience:

1. Confirm proposed schedule for sample report submission;

2. Clarify that sample collection representative of 30 operating days is intended;

3. Specify how to handle sampling in the case of either batch or continuous 

stripping operations, for split streams sent to parallel treatment systems, and for 

alternative process wastewater treatment systems;

4. Provide instructions on reporting resin production rates associated with streams 

sampled;

5. Clarify instructions on sample handling in accordance with SW846 methods

instead of that prescribed in M107;

6. Clarify that streams to be sampled should encompass only those leaving a 

PVCPU process wastewater treatment system;

7. Develop a separate workbook to report production rates, capacities, and 

operating costs that industry may want to claim and submit as confidential 

business information;

8. Specify methodology to use in determining operating costs of a process WW 

treatment system;

9. Specify that only a final complete sample report package and survey should be 

submitted, and that only electronic versions of lab reports should be included;

and

10. Consider proposal to have a project manager at each site designated by the 

Responsible Official to oversee the sampling program and survey completion.