KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP

1

Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to EPA1

June 18, 2012 Petition for Reconsideration August 16, 2013 Letter January 15, 2014 Letter

§ III: EPA set non-VC TOHAP process 

wastewater (WW) limits for existing and new 

sources, without an opportunity to comment, 

using erroneous data that does not reflect 

actual performance.

§ II.A: The non-VC TOHAP limit should be set at 1,000 ppm. WW 

non-VC TOHAP concentrations are a result of recipe, not stripper 

performance, such that the best performer cannot be identified by 

concentration alone. Indeed, nearly all facilities are a best performer 

for one or more HAPs.

§ II.D: Totality of the WW analysis presented in § II of 

this letter supports the industry’s continuing position that 

a non-VC TOHAP wastewater limit of 1,000 ppm 

without subcategorization would be justifiable. 

§ II: The 0.018 ppm non-VC TOHAP limit for existing area sources 

and all new sources was based on an erroneous data point.

This issue was not raised in this letter. EPA staff have 

acknowledged during discussions between the Working 

Group and the Agency that this data point is invalid and

should not be used to calculate the reconsidered WW 

limits. Moreover, the Section 114 data request corrects 

the lack of WW TOHAP data.

§ II.A: The polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) facility should be 

excluded from the calculation of the WW limits because it uses 

different technology and manufactures a substantially different 

product.

This issue was not raised in the letter because no 

additional information or analysis was requested by 

EPA.

§ II.B: EPA should allow monthly compliance averaging so that the 

compliance method mirrors the statistical method (monthly averages) 

used to calculate the limit, which does not account for spikes.

§§ II.A, II.G: Reiterate that EPA should allow monthly 

compliance averaging as stated in the August 16, 2013 

letter. 

§ II.C: The WW non-VC TOHAP limit must allow for the production 

of copolymers and the use of critical ingredients such as methanolbased suspending agents. High concentrations of these soluble HAPs 

(vinyl acetate, methanol) are a function of recipe, not stripper 

performance.

§ II.C: Copolymer production should be subcategorized 

for non-VC TOHAP in WW so that these products can 

continue to be made. Copolymer operations should be 

defined as those when the vinyl acetate concentration in 

the WW at the stripper exceeds 50 ppm.

§ II.F: If EPA is not willing to revert to the 1,000 ppm 

non-VC TOHAP limit, soluble HAPs (methanol and 

acetophenone for homopolymer production, vinyl 

acetate for copolymer production) should be segregated 

and their limits determined separately. The remaining 

non-VC TOHAP limit would then be determined 

without the soluble components.

 1 The sections reflected throughout this table reflect the numbering in the individual documents. Introductory and non-substantive discussions are not 

included in this table. This also does not include the VI’s April 13, 2013, letter concerning clarification to the regulatory text, which involves no 

substantive changes, and which we understand did not present significant issue for the Agency.
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP

2

Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to EPA1

June 18, 2012 Petition for Reconsideration August 16, 2013 Letter January 15, 2014 Letter

§ II.C.3: EPA should provide an alternative compliance approach for 

reducing soluble HAPs present above the 1,000 ppm limit via a 

fugitive emission threshold and a percent removal requirement during 

final biotreatment. The burdensome provisions of the HON should 

not be required.

This issue was not raised in the letter because no 

additional information or analysis was requested by 

EPA.

§ II.D: The Section 114 WW request triggered by the reconsideration 

of the non-VC TOHAP limits also requested VC data. This data 

should not replace, but should be considered with the 12-month VC 

data previously submitted by industry.

§ II.A: There is no rational basis for not incorporating 

the 13 months of WW VC data when calculating the 

WW VC limit.

§ IV: EPA should have subcategorized 

facilities that use Vent Gas Absorbers (VGAs) 

to control process vent emissions.

§ VI: A subcategory for VGAs is both supported by the data and 

necessary. §§ III.A, III.B: Clarify industry’s view and provided 

additional calculations to support an alternative massbased limit. Industry also proposed that this alternative 

would not need to be production-adjusted, and should 

only be available to those facilities below a flow 

threshold of 1 DSCMM.

§ VI: If EPA is unwilling to create a separate subcategory for VGAs, 

alternative mass-based emission limits are necessary to address the 

differences in the nature of emissions from VGAs (significantly lower 

flow, different HAP profile). The Agency should calculate massbased emission limits using the same top five PVC-only facilities 

used to set the concentration limits. 

§ V: The requirements for bypasses from the 

closed vent system (CVS) are overbroad, 

conflict with the equipment opening 

provisions, and are neither achieved nor 

achievable. 

§ IV: The Working Group continues to believe that the requirements 

for bypasses are overbroad, conflict with the equipment opening 

provisions, and are neither achieved nor achievable. These issues were not raised in this letter. We 

understand from the July 23, 2013 meeting with Agency 

staff and subsequent discussions that the conflict with 

the equipment opening provisions was not intended. 

Agency staff also agreed that changes should be made to 

the definition of the CVS and an exemption could be 

added for maintenance-type values. Thus, we expect the 

Agency to correct these issues in the reconsidered rule.

§ IV.A: The definition of the CVS must be revised to begin at the 

exit from the recovery system.

§ IV.B: Maintenance-type valves, which are not truly capable of 

diverting the vent stream from a control device to the atmosphere, 

must be exempt from the bypass requirements.

§ IV.C: The rule must clarify that opening equipment (e.g., for 

maintenance) is not a bypass, provided the equipment opening 

requirements are met.

§ VI: Pressure relief device (PRD) 

requirements are neither achieved nor 

achievable. PRD releases are effectively 

detected by systems currently in place at PVC 

affected sources.

§ VII: The PRD requirements are unnecessary and unachievable, and 

PRD releases are effectively detected by systems currently in place at 

PVC affected sources. Facilities should be able to use these systems 

as an alternative.

This issue was not raised in this letter. EPA staff 

acknowledged during the May 22, 2013 and July 23, 

2013 meetings between the Working Group and the 

Agency that systems currently in place can detect PRD 

releases and that more flexibility should be provided. 

Thus, we expect the Agency to correct this issue in the 

reconsidered rule.
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP

3

Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to EPA1

June 18, 2012 Petition for Reconsideration August 16, 2013 Letter January 15, 2014 Letter

§ VII: EPA should allow use of leak detection 

and repair (LDAR) procedures for pressure 

vessels, which are currently used in the PVC 

industry to address leaks from pressure 

vessels.

§ VIII: Leak detection, coupled with prompt repair, is both the 

MACT floor and reflective of best practices for minimizing emissions 

from pressure vessels.

This issue was not raised in this letter. Agency staff 

agreed during the July 23, 2013 meeting that the intent 

of this provision was to prohibit discharges from 

pressure vessel closure devices during filling, emptying, 

or purging, and the intent was not to prohibit the use of 

LDAR during normal operations. Thus, we expect the 

Agency to correct this issue in the reconsidered rule. 

§ VIII: Vapor balancing should be explicitly 

permitted under the rule in line with current 

industry practices used to control emissions.

§ IX: Vapor balancing should be explicitly permitted under the rule 

in line with current industry practices used to control emissions.

This issue was not raised in this letter. The Agency 

agreed during the May 22, 2013 and July 23 2013 

meetings that vapor balancing should have been 

explicitly permitted. Thus, we expect the Agency to 

clarify this issue in the reconsidered rule.

§ IX: EPA set limits for combined process 

vents and PVC-only process vents without 

providing an opportunity to comment or 

clearly defining the scope of the new PVCcombined subcategory. 

§ III.A: The creation of a PVC-combined subcategory that applies to 

units regulated under the HON and was set using data from a facility 

subject to the MON (the PVDC facility) and other facilities subject to 

the PVC MACT violates the requirement under the Clean Air Act to 

set emission limits based on the emissions reductions achieved by 

similar sources within the same source category. Moreover, these 

sources were not provided an opportunity to comment on this 

approach.

This issue was not raised in the letter because no 

additional information or analysis was requested by 

EPA.

§ III.B: At a minimum, EPA must clarify that the PVC-combined 

emission limits apply at the outlet of the emission control devices.

This issue was not raised in this letter. Based on 

discussions with Agency staff during the July 23, 2013

meeting and subsequent meetings and teleconferences, it 

appears that the Agency intended the PVC-combined 

emission limits to apply at the outlet of the control 

device, but that no other PVC MACT requirements 

would apply to a non-PVC production unit. Thus, we 

expect the Agency to clarify this issue in the 

reconsidered rule. 

§§ I.B, III.C: The PVDC facility should be subcategorized because 

this facility is subject to the MON, rather than the HON, and has a 

process vent stream of a significantly different nature from all other 

facilities that is characterized by significantly less VC.

This issue was not raised in the letter because no 

additional information or analysis was requested by 

EPA.

§ III.C: EPA should allow PVC-combined facilities to use a 

“building block” alternative compliance approach that would blend 

the PVC-only and HON process vent limits on a mass flow basis. 

This issue was not raised in the letter because no 

additional information or analysis was requested by 

EPA.

§ I.C: The new source process vent emission limits are an amalgam 

of emission points from different facilities, and do not reflect the 

§ III.C: New source limits for process vents should be 

based on a single facility for VC, THC, dioxin, and 
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP

4

Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to EPA1

June 18, 2012 Petition for Reconsideration August 16, 2013 Letter January 15, 2014 Letter

performance configuration of any source actually in existence in the 

PVC industry.

TOHAP because the control device cannot be 

operationally adjusted to control one HAP over another. 

The best performer should be selected on the basis of 

VC control. The best performer for HCl can be chosen 

separately because HCl is controlled by a separate 

control device.

--

§ III.D: Further analysis revealed an issue in EPA’s 

calculations. EPA should correct the industry average 

VC detection limit used in setting all VC process vent 

limits by removing the zero value EPA added for a day 

when no data was reported due to a lab error.

§ X: The final rule increased the emission 

profiles that must be developed from a single 

profile at the inlet of the control device to 

hundreds of profiles throughout the facility. 

EPA did not provide an opportunity to 

comment on this overly burdensome 

requirement that provides little or no 

environmental benefit. 

§ V: The emission profile requirement is unnecessary, overly 

burdensome, and goes beyond the information currently developed by 

industry. Emission profiles are also not useful in performing a mass 

balance calculation because of the recovery system. 

This issue was not raised in this letter. At the July 23, 

2013 meeting, Agency staff agreed that emission profiles 

of vent streams routed to the recovery system would not 

be useful. As the Working Group understands, it is 

EPA’s intent to require emission profiles for the CVS 

after the recovery system. Thus, we expect the Agency to 

correct this issue in the reconsidered rule.

The new source stripped resin limits were not 

raised as a distinct issue in the petition for 

reconsideration, and arguably is a new point.

§ I.C: The new source stripped resin limits are an amalgam of 

emission points from different facilities, and do not reflect the 

performance configuration of any source actually in existence in the 

PVC industry. Moreover, the data clearly demonstrate that variations 

in stripped resin HAP profiles are not related solely to variations in 

technological performance, and that product mix and ingredient 

combinations play a significant role. Thus, EPA should use a 

reasonable estimate to determine which facility is the best performer.

§ I: The new source non-VC TOHAP limit for stripped 

suspension resins does not truly reflect the best 

performing facility because residual non-VC TOHAP is 

function of resin recipe and product slate rather than 

stripper performance. Determining the best-controlled 

similar source is difficult but the Working Group 

submits that when taking into consideration the number 

of resins sampled, VC and TOHAP concentration 

ranges, as well as data consistency and other factors, 

Formosa Baton Rouge should be used to set both the 

new source VC and TOHAP limits using the 99th 

percentile and 99.9% UPL approaches, respectively.