October 24, 2012

Sent via E lectronic M ail 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

- 0 1 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 :

T he Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Gro up 1 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 dur ing 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 Sampli ng 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 , sa m pling in t he 4 th 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 beca use laboratories are

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

, Occidental Chemical Company / O xy Vinyls, LP , Westlake Chemical Corporation, and PolyOne Corporation ) and other PVC and Copolymer pro ducers including Georgia Gulf Corporation and The Dow Chemical Company

.Page 2 of 6 The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Stre et, 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 831 5 A 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 laboratorie s.

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 direct ed 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 o ur 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 proce ss 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 ca ll 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 R equest in this rulemaking. The Working Group agrees that tho rough 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. H owever, enhanced quality assurance activities require additional ti me 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 Stre et, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314 (571) 970

- 3392 Fax (571) 970

- 3271 www.vinylinfo.org www.vinylindesign.com submission date anticipated such a step

, expect ing that any quality review and possible re

- s ampling 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 M ay 1, 2013 , is a reasonable time frame for submitting the final 114 Request sample report s

. 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 s amples representative of 3 0 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 t he 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

re quire 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 i mpossible to fully eliminate errors or inconsistencies , but the Working Group notified EPA and corrected such issues as soon as they were discovered

.
As suc h

, 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 contractor s 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 det ails, and the Working Group cannot agree to a n additional certification on QA reviewers that imposes the certification required of responsible corporate officer s, including criminal liability under Title 18

. Such a certification is not appropriate for
per sonnel performing a non

- managerial function and, in any event, is duplicative ofPage 4 of 6 The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Stre et, 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. F irst,
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
constr aints imposed during samplin g and historic al data collection activities

. More importantly, a ccredited labs are required to follow precise procedures specified in analytical methods, and any deviations must be noted and agreed upon by the sample provider b efore completing the analysis.

Accordingly, the Working Group suggest s 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 responsi ble for reviewing the sampling program and survey submissions . The project manager will likely be a senior technical contact from each facility who has work ed with analytical laborator y 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 c ould include a memo from the project manager indicating adherence to a specific checklist on the step s performed to monitor and perform a QA review on the site sampling and survey
program.
The Vinyl Institute and its PVC MACT Working Group appreciate d 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.

S incerely,

Richard P. Krock Technical Director

e

- mail: rkrock@vinylinfo. org phone: 571

- 970

- 3392 Cell : 571

- 216

- 4474Page 5 of 6 The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Stre et, 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 APage 6 of 6 The Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Stre et, 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 Conf erence 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, Dra ft 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, 20 12 conference call, a s 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 conti n uous 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 sam ple 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, ca pacities, 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 pack age 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 complet ion

.