# K ELLER AND 

# H ECKMAN LLP

1 Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to E PA 1 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 HAP s. § 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 t he 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 methanol

based 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 strip per 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 no t 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.

# K ELLER AND 

# H ECKMAN LLP

2 Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to E PA 1 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 ra tional 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 a n alternative mass

based limit. Industry also proposed that t his alternative would not need to be production

- adjusted, and shou ld 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 mass

based 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 t he 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 Work ing 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.

# K ELLER AND 

# H ECKMAN LLP

3 Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to E PA 1 June 18, 2012 Petition for Reconsideration August 16, 2013 Letter January 15, 2014 Letter

§ VII: EPA should allow use of leak detection and r epair (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 Ma y 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 PVC

combined 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
ap

pears 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 reconsi dered 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 bl end 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 proce ss vents should be based on a single facility for VC, THC, dioxin, and

# K ELLER AND 

# H ECKMAN LLP

4 Summary and Comparison of Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group Petition for Reconsideration and Related Correspondence to E PA 1 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 ve nt 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 sys tem. This issue was not raised in this letter. At the July 2 3, 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 e mission 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 fact ors, 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.