BEFORE THE

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

76 Fed. Reg. 29,528 (May 20, 2011)

COMMENTS OF

THE VINYL INSTITUTE, INC.,

PVC MACT WORKING GROUP

Vinyl Institute, Inc.

1737 King Street

Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

(571) 970-3400

Of Counsel:

Peter L. de la Cruz and

Jean-Cyril Walker

Keller and Heckman LLP

1001 G Street, N.W.

Suite 500 West

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 434-4141

August 2, 2011
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Summary.................................................................................................................1

A. Stripped Resin limits must be revised to address statutory and calculation errors and to allow for

HAP variability of different resin recipes........................................................................................2

1. Total Organic HAP and vinyl chloride limits for stripped resin should be recalculated using vinyl

chloride data analyzed by EPA Method 107. ...........................................................................................2

2. Further Subcategorization of Resins is Required .....................................................................................4

3. Properly Calculated MACT Floors ..........................................................................................................4

B. Process Vents...................................................................................................................................5

C. Wastewater Limitations ...................................................................................................................6

D. Heat Exchange Systems ...................................................................................................................6

E. Gas Holders .....................................................................................................................................7

F. Product Range Considerations........................................................................................................7

II. Customer Specifications Drive Resin Morphology, and Resin Morphology Drives Emissions

Profile ....................................................................................................................................................8

III. Stripped Resins: Significant Revisions are Needed to Emissions Limitations, Subcategories, and

Other Requirements...........................................................................................................................12

A. Further Subcategorization of PVC Resins is Required..................................................................13

1. PVC Resin Subcategories Should be Revised to Address Textual Inconsistencies and Prevent

Regulatory Confusion ............................................................................................................................14

2. Process Equipment, Resin Morphology and Other Considerations Support Further Subcategorization16

3. Copolymers are a Completely Different Chemistry From Homopolymers and Must be Regulated

Through Their Own Subcategories ........................................................................................................18

B. Stripped Resin Limits Must be Revised to Address Statutory and Calculation Errors and Allow for

HAP Variability of Different Resin Recipes...................................................................................19

1. Total Organic HAP and Vinyl Chloride Limits for Stripped Resin Should be Recalculated Using Vinyl

Chloride Data Analyzed by EPA Method 107 .......................................................................................20

2. Dispersion Resin Limits Should be Based on Measured Concentration Data and Not Calculated Mass

Figures....................................................................................................................................................24

3. EPA Should Apply a Compliance Averaging Factor of 1 to Properly Estimate the Future Variability of

Daily Resin Stripping Limits for Vinyl Chloride ...................................................................................25

4. EPA Should Apply a Compliance Averaging Factor of 12 to Properly Estimate the Future Variability

of Monthly Resin Stripping Limit for TOHAP ......................................................................................27

5. EPA Should Have Applied a UPL of 99.9% to Properly Estimate the Future Variability of Daily Resin

Stripping Limits for Vinyl Chloride.......................................................................................................27

C. EPA’s Proposal to Regulate Stripped Resin Using TOHAPs is the Correct Approach ................29

1. Best Performing Stripped Resin Facilities Should be Identified by TOHAPs .......................................29

2. Definition of TOHAP for Suspension PVC ...........................................................................................34

D. Analyte Detection Limits................................................................................................................35

E. Resin Stripping in the Reactor .......................................................................................................37

F. Beyond-the-Floor MACT Analysis for Stripped Resins .................................................................37

G. The Wide Divergence in Operating Parameters Needed for Different Resins Makes the Use of

CPMS on PVC Resin Strippers Infeasible .....................................................................................38
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

ii

H. EPA Should Consider an Alternative Initial Compliance Period for PVCPUs to Demonstrate

TOHAP Compliance ......................................................................................................................39

I. There is no Need for EPA to Pre-Approve Stripped Resin Test Methods......................................40

J. The Agency Needs to Allow use of Test Methods That Most Effectively Measure Certain HAPs .41

IV. Emissions Limitations for Process Vents Must be Revised ............................................................43

A. EPA Should Postpone Promulgation of the PVC MACT and Consolidate the Rule With the

Pending EDC/VCM MACT............................................................................................................44

B. The MACT Floor for Process Vents Should be Recalculated Using Data From Facilities that

Operated at Representative Maximum Operating Conditions for PVC Production......................45

C. Some Recovery Devices are not Control Devices; EPA Should Promote the Use of Recovery

Devices, and Exclude Recovery Devices From the Definition of Destructive Control Devices,

Whenever Possible.........................................................................................................................48

D. Case in Point—EPA Should Develop Separate Limits for Absorber Stripper Recovery Devices .52

E. EPA Should Impose Work Practice Standards Rather Than Emission Limits to Control Dioxin

Emissions .......................................................................................................................................54

1. EPA Should Not Set Numeric Dioxin/Furan Standards for PVCPU Process Vents ..............................54

2. EPA Should Set Work Practice Requirements or Adjust the Dioxin/Furan Standard to Account For

Measurement Uncertainty ......................................................................................................................56

3. Activated Carbon Injection and Fabric Filters Cannot be Installed on PVCPU Process Vents .............59

F. Revisions are Needed to the Monitoring and Testing Provisions for Process Vents.....................60

1. If a Site Uses an Existing Vinyl Chloride CEMS to Comply with the Vinyl Chloride Limitation, No

Additional CPMS Monitoring or VCM Stack Testing Should be Required. Less Frequent TOH/THC

Stack Tests Could Still be Required.......................................................................................................61

2. Stack Test Methods Should be Expanded to Allow Those Methods Used to Generate the CAA Section

114 Request Test Data. Stack Testing Frequency Should, As a Maximum, be Adjustable in a Fashion

Similar to the Boiler and Process Heater MACT. ..................................................................................61

3. Compliance Demonstrations Should be Based on Either TOH or THC.................................................62

4. Stack Performance Testing Should Not Include Startup and Shutdown Events. The THC Limit Must

Accommodate Startup and Shutdown Emissions for a Site that Employs THC CEMS. .......................63

5. EPA Should Not Require Dioxins/Furans CEMS ..................................................................................63

6. EPA Should Evaluate Whether Available HCL CEMS Equipment Can Measure the Proposed New

Plant Standard and Reevaluate the HCL CEMS Cost Estimate. ............................................................64

V. Requirements Governing Closed Vent Systems Must be Revised .................................................64

A. Requirements for Bypasses Must be Revised .................................................................................65

B. Definition of Bypass Should be Revised.........................................................................................66

C. Requirements for Bypasses Flow Indicators Must be Revised.......................................................67

VI. Wastewater Limitations are Incorrect, Needlessly Complex, Should Distinguish Between

Inprocess and Maintenance Wastewaters and Should be Revised ................................................67

A. Wastewater Floor Limits for Wastewater Strippers Must be Recalculated to use Actual Sampling

Data and Test Data Reflecting Actual Operating Conditions .......................................................68

B. Remove the “Point of Generation” Concept from the PVC MACT and Employ the “clean and

unambiguous” Point of Determination Approach Now Used in the Hazardous Organic NESHAPs

(HON) ............................................................................................................................................69
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

iii

1. POG is an Overly Complex Concept and PVCPUs Already are Controlling Wastewater.....................70

2. The Definitions of Inprocess Wastewater need to be Revised ...............................................................72

C. Maintenance Wastewater Streams Should be Regulated Independently of Inprocess Wastewater73

1. The Capture of Maintenance Wastewater Emissions is Infeasible and Thus Warrants use of a Work

Practice Standard....................................................................................................................................74

2. Suggested Regulatory Text and Operational Standard...........................................................................75

D. EPA Needs to Clarify Which Inprocess Wastewater Streams Require Control and Treatment ....76

1. Concentration Averaging Provisions are Needed...................................................................................76

2. Continuous Affirmation that Wastewater Streams do Not Need Treatment Must be Eliminated or

Severely Curtailed..................................................................................................................................76

E. EPA Needs to Clarify the Provisions for Determining HAP Concentration in Wastewater Streams

77

1. There are no provisions for establishing an average concentration; the control level determination is

based on a grab sample, as per proposed 63.11965(c) ...........................................................................77

2. The provisions for establishing the annual average flow rate need adjustment flexibility at section

63.11965(d)............................................................................................................................................77

3. The provisions for establishing the annual average flow rate at section 63.11965(d) need clarification

78

F. Continuous Compliance Requirements for Wastewater Not Requiring Treatment are Excessive 78

G. EPA Must Provide Exemptions for Certain Safety-Related Streams.............................................79

H. Wastewater Test Methods and Test Plan .......................................................................................80

1. Site-specific Test Plans Should not Need Prior EPA Approval .............................................................80

2. Wastewater Monitoring Methods need to be Supplemented and Adjusted............................................81

3. Holding Times Should not be Mandated at 24-Hours Maximum ..........................................................82

4. Existing Method Modifications Must Continue to be Authorized .........................................................82

5. TOHAP Calculation Must be Modified .................................................................................................83

I. Miscellaneous Wastewater Clarifications Requested....................................................................83

1. Determiniation of the annual average flow rate using knowlegede of the wastewater...........................83

2. Discrepancies at Section 63.11975(e)(3)................................................................................................84

3. Discrepancies at Section 63.11965(b)(1) ...............................................................................................84

4. Verification that Downstream Wastewater Treatment Units are NOT part of the PVCPU ...................84

VII. Storage Vessels Containing Gases and Solid Materials Should not be Included in the

Proposed Definition............................................................................................................................84

A. Other MACT Standards, such as HON, MON, OLD and Ethylene MACT all exempt: “Pressure

vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the

atmosphere”...................................................................................................................................86

B. Define the term: Byproduct: ..........................................................................................................87

C. Vapor balancing should be an allowed method of control for compliance with the storage tanks

provisions: .....................................................................................................................................87

VIII. Heat Exchange Systems...............................................................................................................88

A. Recycled and Other Make-Up Water Should Not be Regulated as Leaks .....................................88

B. The Proposed Rule Should Provide Flexibility for Those Circumstances When Neither the

Modified El Paso Method nor the 8021B Method can be Used.....................................................89
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

iv

C. Heat Exchange System Limits are Unprecedented and Unwarranted...........................................90

D. Additional Exemption for Heat Exchangers is Needed..................................................................90

E. Other Heat Exchange System Comments.......................................................................................91

IX. Gasholder Emission and Control Information ................................................................................91

A. PVC MACT Gasholder Definition .................................................................................................92

B. Gasholder Equipment Controls .....................................................................................................94

C. Gasholder Procedural Requirements ............................................................................................94

1. Reducing Emissions From the Water Seal and the Wet Bell Wall.........................................................94

2. Beyond-the-Floor Controls ....................................................................................................................95

X. Pressure Relief Devices ......................................................................................................................95

A. Pressure Relief Devices Release to Atmosphere Should Not be an Automatic Violation..............95

B. Automatic Release Indicators Are Not Necessary .........................................................................97

XI. Equipment Leaks................................................................................................................................98

XII. New Source Emissions Limits Should Allow for Variability and Flexibility........................100

A. EPA Should Revise the Effective Compliance Date for New Sources to be 3 Years After

Promulgation ...............................................................................................................................100

B. EPA Should Allow for Resin Grade Variability in Determining New Source Limits for Stripped

Resin.............................................................................................................................................101

C. EPA Should Consider Percent Operating Capacity When Establishing New Source Limits for

Process Vents...............................................................................................................................101

D. EPA Needs to Base Stripped Wastewater Limits on Actual Data and Not on Engineering

Estimates......................................................................................................................................101

XIII. Final PVC MACT Must Address Regulatory Overlaps.........................................................102

A. CAA Regulatory Overlap:............................................................................................................102

B. Shared Control Device System Overlap: .....................................................................................102

C. VCM NESHAP “Sunset” Concern: .............................................................................................103

D. The Following Overlap Language Should be Added to the PVC MACT:....................................103

E. Suggested language for VCM NESHAP break: ...........................................................................104

XIV. EPA Should Correct Cross-Reference and Citation Errors ..................................................104

XV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................110
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

v

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment No. Description

Attachment 1 Technical Impacts of PVC MACT Comments on Change in Resin

Properties Affecting Downstream Users, Dated July 21, 2011

Attachment 2 UL Yellow Card 7107

Attachment 3 Example PVC Resin Specifications

Attachment 4 Vendor Letters Regarding Stripping of PVC Slurries

Attachment 5 Powerpoint Presentation from OxyVinyls – Joint Industry/EPA Meeting,

June 30, 2011, Regarding PVC Stripping to Reduce PVC RVCM and

Impact of Particle Morphology and Column Operating Parameters

Attachment 6 Summary of Cost Review for Controls for Compliance With EPA’s

Proposed PVC MACT Rule (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHHHH)

Attachment 7 Additional Sampling Databases Submitted by the PVC MACT Working

Group

Attachment 8 Method 107, Vinyl Chloride Content of Inprocess Wastewater Samples,

and Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Slurry, Wet

Cake, and Latex Samples

Attachment 9 Report and Cover Letter from Environmental Chemistry, Inc. to The

Vinyl Institute Regarding Phase II HAPs Method Development Study

Attachment 10 Definition of PVC Process TOHAP Test Plan Recommendations for

Working Group Comments on EPA Proposed PVC MACT

Attachment 11 Calculation Spreadsheets to Support Limits Proposed by PVC MACT

Working Group

Attachment 12 Letter from Richard P. Krock, The Vinyl Institute to Jodi Howard,EPA,

dated July 12, 2011 Regarding PVC-Only Facilities to Use for Process

Vent MACT Floor Calculations

Attachment 13 Memorandum from John Martinez, URS Corporation dated June 29, 2011

Regarding Use and Costs of Activated Carbon Injection For Controlling

Dioxins/Furans (D/Fs) from Process Vent Streams after Thermal

Oxidizer for PVC Plants

Attachment 14 Suggested PVC MACT Wastewater Language

Attachment 15 U.S. v. Conoco, No. 83-2518 (W.D. La. June 1, 1984)

Attachment 16 Analytical Laboratory Response Concerning Use of Method 8021B
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

vi

FIGURES

Figure No. Description

Figure 1 Subcategorization of vinyl chloride homopolymer and copolymer resins

Figure 2 Comparison of Method 107 and 8260B samples for best performing

dispersion facility

Figure 3 Comparison of Method 107 and 8260B samples for best performing

suspension facility

Figure 4 Percentile comparison for best 5 performing facilities for VCM

Figure 5 Georgia Gulf – Aberdeen, 30 Day Sampling Results – Isopropyl benzene

Figure 6 Oxy - Pasadena, 30 Day Sampling Results – Methanol

Figure 7 Oxy - Pasadena, 30 Day Sampling Results – Acetonphenone

Figure 8 Percentage of days out of compliance based on individual HAP averages

Figure 9 Percentage of days out of Compliance based on individual HAP averages

(variability included)

Figure 10 Monthly PVC Resin Production, Thousand lbs

Figure 11 PVC Vents vs. BMACT Gas 1 Units Dioxin/Furan Data

TABLES

Table No. Description

Table 1 Suspension and Dispersion Process Chemistry

Table 2 t-Test: 30-Day Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Table 3 Variability between Method 8260B and 107 30-Day Samples

Table 4 Stripped Resin Limits Actually Achieved

Table 5 TOHAP Limits – Rolling Average vs. Monthly Limits

Table 6 Recalculated Process Vent MACT Floors for Existing Sources

Table 7 Performance Results for Five Best Performing PVC-only Facilities with

Representative Emission Data

Table 8 Comparison of Available Performance Options with Two Locations with

Recovery Devices

Table 9 Proposed Re-Calculated Wastewater Stripper Discharge Vinyl Chloride

Limitations

Table 10 Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

1

The Vinyl Institute (“VI”) PVC MACT Working Group (“Working Group”),1appreciates

the opportunity to comment on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production proposed by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (“EPA”).2 Working Group members manufacture the majority of the U.S.

production volume of homopolymer polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) and copolymer resins, and thus,

are directly affected by this proposal to set Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”) maximum

achievable control technology (“MACT”) emissions limitations for PVC and copolymer

production facilities.

I. Introduction and Summary

The Working Group and the industry generally support this rulemaking. Working Group

members have expended a significant amount of money, man-hours, and other resources over the

past three (3) years to collect and submit facility and process information, as well as emissions,

resin, and wastewater sampling data in response to information requests issued pursuant to the

Agency’s authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).

At all times, the primary goal of the Working Group has been to ensure that EPA has

sufficient data on which to base a PVC MACT rule that meets three fundamental prerequisites:

(1) Consistency with the mandates of the CAA and related legal precedents;

(2) Allows the PVC and copolymer industry to continue to produce the mix of

products upon which its customers depend, both now and in the future; and

(3) Allows for U.S. manufacturers to grow their business and compete in a global

market.

There is no conflict in these prerequisites because the legislative history makes it clear

that the MACT provisions were not intended to discontinue facility operation or to prohibit the

continued manufacture of products, but to ensure that emissions from production are properly

limited.3 Because more than 100 different PVC resins are produced annually by U.S. industry

(and dozens on a daily basis), the Working Group’s overarching goal has been to preserve this

array of products specifically designed to meet longstanding customer requirements while

complying with the mandates of the Act. This, in turn, requires production flexibility. Taking

these prerequisites into consideration, the Working Group agrees that:

 EPA proposes to address the appropriate emission points at PVC production units

(“PVCPU”), including process vents, wastewater, equipment leaks, storage vessels,

and stripped resin (although we recommend that with respect to process vents, EPA

1

In addition to Vinyl Institute (“VI”) members Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Occidental Chemical

Corporation/Oxy Vinyls, LP, PolyOne Corporation, Shintech Inc., and Westlake Chemical Corporation, the PVC

MACT Working Group includes non-VI members Dow Chemical Company and Georgia Gulf Corporation. The

Vinyl Institute, Inc., founded in 1982, is a U.S. trade association representing the leading manufacturers of vinyl,

vinyl chloride monomer, vinyl additives and modifiers, and vinyl packaging materials.

2

76 Fed. Reg. 29,528 (May 20, 2011).

3

Senate Report (Environment and Public Works Committee) No. 101-228, 1st Sess. at 168-169 (December 20,

1989) [To accompany S. 1630].
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

2

separate regulations applicable to thermal oxidizers from regulations applicable to

absorbers);

 The proposal focuses on the appropriate hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”), including

process related subsets of total organic HAPs (“TOHAPs”), vinyl chloride, and

hydrogen chloride. The Working Group does not support the Agency efforts to set

numerical limits for dioxin/furans. To the extent that it proceeds to do so the Agency

should regulate these emissions through work practice standards.

 The Part 61 NESHAP should no longer apply once facilities are in compliance with

the final PVC MACT; however, the Agency should move all Part 61 referenced

sampling methodologies to Part 63, and directly incorporate any other proposed Part

61 cross-references into the final rule.

 EPA’s determination that there are no technically or economically feasible “beyondthe-floor” (“BTF”) options for the affected emission points is correct.

 Consideration of process and emissions variability in setting MACT floors and

subcategorization is needed and justified.

The proposed rule and our comments necessarily reflect the complexity of the products

and processes encompassed by this source category. We very much appreciate the agency’s twoweeks extension of the comment period in response to our request for a 45-day extension,

especially in light of the time constraints placed on the agency. However, our comments and the

final rule would benefit from even further development and refinement that additional time

would have allowed.

The Agency’s proposal is a strong first step, but to satisfy the statutory criteria as

interpreted by the courts and permit continued production of existing products, critical changes

are needed. In considering our comments and recommendations, please recognize that we

employed the agency’s general methodology for calculating MACT floors. Our suggested

revisions reflect corrections in the agency’s application of its methodology or the agency’s

misunderstanding of data inputs.

We stress that this introductory section only highlights some of the key points and a

careful review of our entire comments and the attachments is needed to capture all of the

important topics we wish to address. We appreciate the agency’s diligence and efforts in this

regard.

A. Stripped Resin limits must be revised to address statutory and calculation errors

and to allow for HAP variability of different resin recipes

1. Total Organic HAP and vinyl chloride limits for stripped resin should be

recalculated using vinyl chloride data analyzed by EPA Method 107.

Under the Agency’s proposed rule, residual vinyl chloride monomer (“RVCM”) limits in

stripped PVC resin would decrease drastically from 400 parts per million (“ppm”) to 0.48 ppm

for suspension resins, and from 2000 ppm to 55 ppm for dispersion resins produced at existing
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

3

facilities. Not a single facility in the industry can meet these limits as proposed by EPA.4

There were critical errors in the development of these limits, and all PVC production process

units (PVCPUs) will be unable to comply with the proposed limits unless they are correctly

recalculated. The vinyl chloride limit for stripped resin was developed using data obtained

pursuant to Method 8260B, a method foreign to the PVC industry for resin testing; Method

8260B consistently underreports vinyl chloride concentration in resin. Yet the industry,

according to the proposed rule, must demonstrate compliance using Method 107, which is more

sensitive and accurate, and will consistently yield compliance sampling results that exceed the

proposed limits.

The Working Group fully supports the Agency’s inclusion of a daily limit for vinyl

chloride. This is the current industry practice and provides resin stripper performance

information on a near real-time basis. Both the mass and concentration databases used by EPA

to develop stripped resin limits for both vinyl chloride and other HAPS were populated with

daily observations from each facility, but the agency’s approach implied that the database used in

setting the floor was comprised of individual 8-hour stripper samples, which was not the case.

As an alternative, the Working Group is submitting four years (2007-2010) of daily

RVCM compliance averages. This information was collected, analyzed, and reported as required

under the current Part 61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP. It is more reflective of the emission levels

actually achieved by the industry than the snapshot provided by the 30-day sampling data that

EPA used to calculate the MACT floors in the proposed rule. The database is significantly large

that use of the UPL statistical tool becomes unnecessary. Use of the four-year data will satisfy

the agency’s obligation to use the best available data in setting the MACT floor for vinyl

chloride; it reflects actual operations and avoids the need for applying statistical tools to estimate

variability.

As explained in context later in these comments:

 The TOHAP floor values for stripped resin were incorrectly calculated, are based

partially on RVCM data that is inconsistent with the compliance method proposed,

and do not correctly use data from the best five performers for each HAP. In

evaluating the feasibility of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach for stripped resin, the

Working Group followed a more conservative approach than EPA. Rather than

develop a daily TOHAP average as the agency had done, the Working Group first

sought to develop average daily limits on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

 EPA should use 99.9th percentile of actual data to properly estimate the normal

variability of daily resin stripping limits for vinyl chloride. Because daily averages

are required for compliance, resin producers will automatically be out of compliance

one out of every 100 samples when a 99 percentile is applied. The best performing

facility must meet the limit “every day and under all operating conditions,” which

further calls for 99.9% or 99.9 percentile basis for the limits.

4 The only exception is the sole bulk resin facility, and as will quickly become apparent, solely because EPA

correctly used Method 107 data. As the sole source in the category, EPA accepted their VCM NESHAP data as

MACT.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

4

 EPA should apply a compliance averaging factor of 1 to properly estimate the future

variability of daily resin stripping limits for vinyl chloride.

 EPA should apply a compliance averaging factor of 12 to properly estimate the future

variability of monthly resin stripping limit for TOHAP.

 Dispersion resin limits should be based on measured concentration data and not

calculated mass figures.

 The wide divergence in operating parameters needed for different resins makes the

use of a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) on PVC resin strippers

infeasible.

 EPA should consider an alternative compliance period for PVCPUs to demonstrate

TOHAP compliance.

 There is no need for EPA to pre-approve stripped resin test methods.

 The agency needs to allow use of test methods that most effectively measure certain

HAPs.

2. Further Subcategorization of Resins is Required

EPA is proposing to subcategorize PVCPUs into three subcategories: bulk resins,

dispersion resins, and all other resin types for purposes of setting stripped resin limits. However,

the equipment, process, and ingredients used to produce blending resins differ from all other

types of PVC resins, including suspension resins. Thus for purposes of the stripped resin limits,

blending resins and suspension resins should be separate subcategories under homopolymers.

Furthermore, because copolymer resins are based on a different chemistry than homopolymers,

copolymer PVCPUs should also be subcategorized by the following resin types: suspension,

dispersion, blending and solution. Industry is resubmitting its 30-day concentration database that

is reformatted to subcategorize these additional products and grades.

3. Properly Calculated MACT Floors

When these corrections are applied, the calculated MACT floors are:

Recalculated Stripped Resin Limits

Existing Sources New Sources

VCM Daily

Limit (ppm)

TOHAP Limit*

(ppm)

VCM Daily

Limit (ppm)

TOHAP Limit*

(ppm)

Suspension 38 120 7.3 38

Dispersion 1300 1900 480 310

Vinyl Acetate

Copolymer 790 2000 790 2000

Blending 140 3600 140 3600

Limit would be a monthly average for the first 11 months following the implementation date of the rule and a 12-month

rolling average thereafter.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

5

B. Process Vents

 The MACT floor for process vents should be recalculated using data from facilities

that operated at representative maximum operating conditions for PVC-only

production.

 Control devices at co-located facilities are designed with multiple times the thermal

capacity in MM BTU/hr compared with those smaller units in operation at PVC-only

facilities.

 Recovery devices should be excluded from the definition of control devices,

distinguished separately from destructive control devices.

 EPA should develop separate limits for absorber-type stripper recovery devices that

have zero dioxin/furan and low HCl and vinyl chloride emissions.

 EPA should not set numeric dioxin/furan standards for PVCPU process vents because

measurements below 0.1 ng/dscm are uncertain.

o EPA should impose work practice standards rather than emission limits to

control dioxin emissions

o EPA should set work practice requirements or adjust the dioxin/furan standard

to account for measurement uncertainty

 Installing activated carbon injection and fabric filters on PVCPU process vents is

infeasible. ACI vendors have no experience at the low dioxin concentrations found in

PVC thermal oxidizer exhaust. Further, ACI is ineffective in moist streams found

after the scrubbers now in place on most thermal oxidizers, requiring the exhaust to

be reheated before the carbon can be added.

 Revisions are needed to the monitoring and testing provisions for process vents. If a

site uses an existing vinyl chloride continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)

to comply with the vinyl chloride limitation, no additional CPMS monitoring or

frequent stack testing should be required. Less frequent TOH/THC stack tests could

still be required.

 Compliance demonstrations should be allowable for either total organic HAP (TOH)

or total hydrocarbon (THC).

 Stack performance testing should not include startup and shutdown events. The THC

limit must accommodate startup and shutdown emissions for a site that employs THC

CEMS.

 EPA should not include dioxin/furan CEMS in this rule. This technology is not

developed well enough to be included at this time.

 EPA should not require annual performance testing. Stack testing frequency should,

as a maximum, be adjustable in a fashion similar to the Boiler and Process Heater

MACT whereby facilities meeting compliance limits test less frequently up to a

period of every 5 years.

A table of recalculated process vent MACT floors follows.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

6

Recalculated Process Vent MACT Floors for Existing Sources

Regulated HAP 99% UPL MACT Floor

Emission Limit

Vinyl Chloride 16.98 10*

Hydrogen chloride (ppm) 140.66 141

Total organic HAP (ppm) 47.12 48

THC 12.64 13

CDD/CDF (TEQ) (ng/dscm) 0.019 0.021**

* UPL value was lowered to existing limit.

**Any number below 0.1 should be treated as being uncertain because the limits of quantitation

below that level are uncertain. Accordingly, work practice standards should be set at this level.

C. Wastewater Limitations

 Wastewater floor limits must be recalculated to use actual sampling data and test data

reflecting actual operating conditions.

 EPA should use industry’s 2008 data base provided by the VI for vinyl chloride

concentration in stripped wastewater to set MACT floor. Industry calculates the floor

at 0.49 ppm VC using this data whereas EPA is proposing 0.11 ppm VC.

 Maintenance wastewater streams should be regulated independently of in-process

wastewater.

 The capture of maintenance wastewater emissions is infeasible and thus warrants use

of a work practice standard. EPA is attempting to control emissions from

hydroblasting water.

 EPA needs to clarify which in-process wastewater streams require control and

treatment by clearly defining them at point of determination and not at their proposed

point of generation.

 EPA must provide exemptions for certain safety-related streams such as safety

showers.

 EPA should revise the proposed definition of wastewater to follow the VCM

NESHAP’s inprocess wastewater definition.

 Site-specific plans for testing wastewater are not complex, and it would better serve

the industry and EPA if prior approval by EPA were eliminated from the PVC MACT

rule.

D. Heat Exchange Systems

 Recycled and other make-up water should not be regulated as leaks.

 The proposed rule should provide flexibility for those circumstances when neither the

modified El Paso Method nor the 8021B Method can be used to monitor cooling

tower water.

 Method 107 should be allowed for measuring compliance of cooling tower water.

 The heat exchange system limits are the most stringent of any EPA rule promulgated

to date and are unwarranted.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

7

 Additional exemption for heat exchangers is needed for those employing an

intermediate cooling fluid or those dealing with less than 5% by weight of total HAP

between the process and the cooling water.

E. Gas Holders

The Working Group agrees with EPA that gasholders can be part of a VCM recovery

system, with gasholders being the sole technology suitable for use in modern low-pressure VCM

handling systems within PVCPUs. We suggest a regulatory definition and work practice

standard for gasholders.

F. Product Range Considerations

As the Agency reviews these Working Group comments, and those of the broader

regulated community, it is important to recognize the wide range of vinyl polymers and

copolymers produced by the industry. For ease of reference, we will use the term “flexibility” in

PVCPU operations. This product mix flexibility relates to the continued production of various

vinyl polymers or copolymers (resins), and should not be misinterpreted as relating to some other

operational or environmental performance criteria.

As a general matter, PVC and copolymer resins are not like most of the commodity

chemicals and other product manufacturing processes the Agency has regulated under the MACT

framework. In many instances, resin recipes have been specifically formulated to meet a series

of customer material specifications. These specifications relate not only to the properties and

performance characteristics of the ultimate product (compare pipes and fittings, windows, doors,

medical applications, wires and cables, and automotive upholstery, etc.), but also to the

machinery and processes used to manufacture these products. As a result, PVCPUs must

constantly monitor and adjust a complex combination of process parameters and product

characteristics to ensure that the finished resin meets customer specifications.

For each resin specification by each producer there is a specific reason for the properties

sought. For example, resin porosity governs the amount of plasticizer that the resin will adsorb

and absorb. The porosity and bulk density correlate to the material’s formulation and the

equipment and manner of processing to meet finished product specifications. The resin

properties and characteristics are critical to the finished product. PVC products intended for

food grade applications with relatively short useful lives have very different characteristics and

specifications from those intended for exterior building applications requiring 50-year

warranties. Often times, a particular grade of resin is produced at the request of a single PVC

converter in order to meet specific end product requirements and specifications.

In addition to customer requirements, products must also comply with the applicable

regulations, codes, and standards, which also drive resin specifications. Examples include the

domestically applicable International Residential Code (“IRC”), International Building Code

(“IBC”), International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) or the National Electrical Code

(“NEC”), and those issued by organizations such as American National Standards Institute

(“ANSI”), ASTM International (“ASTM”), the National Sanitation Foundation (“NSF”) and

Underwriters Laboratory (“UL”), Canadian Code bodies, European Code bodies, as well as other
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

8

country and international codes. The Food and Drug Administration’s policy on residual vinyl

chloride in finished food contact materials and medical devices serves as an example of

regulatory criteria. Because a significant quantity of resin is exported, these domestic examples

would need to be supplemented with a global list to fully convey the ramifications of not being

able to continue to produce existing resin types or modify them to meet changing global

standards related to improved product performance or safety.

Given that more than 100 different PVC resins are produced annually by U.S. industry

(and dozens on a daily basis), the Working Group’s overarching goal has been to preserve this

array of products specifically designed to meet longstanding customer requirements while

complying with the mandates of the Act. There is no conflict in these two perspectives because

the legislative history makes it clear that the MACT provisions were not intended to discontinue

facility operation or to prohibit the continued manufacture of products, but to ensure that

emissions from production are properly limited.5

We discuss the critical role of resin morphology as it relates to resin varieties in Section

II. In the subsequent sections, we present our detailed technical comments on key topics

(stripped resin, process vents, wastewater, heat exchange systems and gas holders), responses to

specific EPA questions and request for information, as well as suggested revisions to the rule.

The Working Group concurs with and supports comments on this proposed rule filed by

the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute, the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, the

National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical Refiners Association, the

Resilient Floor Covering Institute, the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association, and other allied trade

associations, as well the individual comments of VI and Working Group member companies.

We stress that this introductory section only highlights some of the key points and a

careful review of our entire comments and the attachments is needed to capture all of the

important topics we wish to address. We appreciate the agency’s diligence and efforts in this

regard.

II. Customer Specifications Drive Resin Morphology, and Resin Morphology Drives

Emissions Profile

In the United States, PVC products, such as critical-care blood bags and medical tubing,

drinking water pipes and fittings, energy-efficient window frames and roofing, and fire-resistant

wires and cables, to name a few, generate over $50 billion annually in economic benefit. PVC

products accounted for $4 billion dollars of total U.S. exports in 2010, and are expected to

increase. Using approximately 14 billion pounds of domestically produced PVC resin, the U.S.

downstream PVC industry employs hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers in over

2,800 hundred converter plants in almost every state, and many times more jobs for downstream

fabricators, transporters, distributors, installers, and recyclers. All these contributions to the U.S.

economy are being accomplished while the U.S. PVC industry has year over year reduced its

emissions profile and environmental burden.

5

Senate Report (Environment and Public Works Committee) No. 101-228, 1st Sess. at 168-169 (December 20,

1989) [To accompany S. 1630].
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

9

One important, often overlooked aspect of end product specifications is the relationship

of the specified resin to the necessary manufacturing process. EPA must appreciate this

relationship to fully understand the impact of emissions controls on end products. Suspension

resins cannot replace dispersion resins, as a general rule. Dispersion resins are used for products

that require a free-flowing liquid mixture, such as coatings that are applied by dipping the

product into the mixture. Examples include safety grips on plier handles, dishwasher racks,

flooring, or gloves for safe chemical handling. Dispersion resins typically are used for slush

molding compounds and plastisols. Suspension resins, on the other hand, are the resin of choice

for extruding machines (twin screw, single screw, co-rotating, or counter-rotating extruders),

calendaring equipment, and injection molding machines and make products including, but not

limited to, water pipes, automotive parts, and window profiles.

For example, a particular grade of resin may be developed specifically for one particular

type of extruder in combination with the screw design and the die design, to make a certain end

product. After the formulation and the resin have been established to run efficiently and

effectively on the tooling, the product must meet all applicable codes and standards. If the resin

producer changes any of the properties of the resin, then everything in the manufacturing process

could be forced to change – the formulation and equipment could require modifications or

processing parameter changes. Formulation changes could include the use of more expensive

additives or additional HAPs to stabilize a changed recipe. Recipe changes also could result in

changes to extrusion dies or screws at a cost of $20,000 to $50,000 each. In some instances, a

new injection-molding die may need to be manufactured and could easily run $250,000.

The preceding narrative is not offered to describe the potential economic impact of the

proposed rule, but to illustrate the link between customer and end-product specifications, resin

morphology, and compliance with the proposed emission limits as discussed further below. In

this regard, we note the holding in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 877 (D.C. Cir.

2007)(“Brick MACT Case”) that non-technology factors, such as material inputs, must be

considered when setting emission limit floors.

The Working Group is unaware of any non-technology factors besides material inputs

that affect emissions and could have a role in setting emission floors. As for resin ingredients

with HAPs, both potential best and worst performers in the industry use a similar range of them,

with the only differentiating factor being the recipe requirements necessitated by customer

demand. Thus, it is axiomatic that material substitution is not a viable non-technological factor

for setting floors. Nevertheless, the Working Group suggests EPA provide a more explicit

explanation of this determination either in the final rule or background documents for

transparency and documentation purposes. To that end, we note, as does EPA, that:

The type of resin production process used is dictated by the end use of the product

and the product’s required physical and chemical properties and function, such as

the need for flexibility, rigidity, or the ability to be molded. For example, to make

dispersion resins (as compared to other types of resins), different reactants,

initiators, and surfactants are used in the manufacturing process. The differences
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

10

in chemicals used for manufacturing, and the properties of the final product, result

in products with different compositions.6

It is important to understand, however, that individual formulations are not simply the

whim of downstream customers, but often are called for by building and other codes, third party

standards, and other regulatory specifications. For example, ASTM Standard Specification

D1784 – 11, Standard Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Compounds and

Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Compounds,7classifies acceptable PVC pipe

materials by “base resin, impact resistance, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity in tension,

deflection temperature under load, and flammability.” This standard has a cell classification

provision which many finished product standards reference. If a producer changes a cell

classification number, it may require exterior weathering testing for two years during which time

the producer may not be able to sell his product. If the formulation is changed significantly, then

toxicity and chemical resistance characteristics may need to be retested.

Changing the PVC manufacturing process can affect the tacticity of the polymer and the

crystallinity of the particle and the particle morphology. Particle morphology is very critical to

handling PVC resin and formulating the resin for good finished product results. Other

characteristics, such as thermal resistance, opacity, and weather resistance may also be relevant

depending on the end-use application. In turn, building codes or government specifications may

mandate the use of PVC products meeting the requirements of ASTM D1784. A list of

additional standards and specifications are provided at Attachment 1. As a result, any change in

resin formulation fundamentally changes the product, which generally must undergo a long and

painstaking certification process before being accepted for use. To change a standard or code

can take several years and a great deal of testing. Every PVC-based product made and sold in

the United States generally has to meet some type of ASTM, UL, NSF, International Code

Council (“ICC”), National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”), Insulating Glass Certification

Council (“IGCC”), Uniform Building Code (“UBC”), American Architectural Manufacturers

Association (“AAMA”), International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”), Canadian

Standards Association (“CSA”), the Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging equipment

Manufacturers (“NEMA”), American Water Works Association (“AWWA”), or other code or

regulation.

The UL Component Plastics Recognition Program, for example, requires that PVC resin

producers seeking to achieve UL incorporation of their resin in certain standards first submit

their resin recipe to UL. The resin undergoes a “fingerprint” test involving three identification

analyses: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (“FTIR”), thermogravimetry (“TGA”), and

differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Once the tests are completed successfully, UL will

publish a unique grade designation (the fingerprint) for that resin, an example of which is

included as Attachment 2. UL conducts quarterly follow up visits at each production facility,

and collects a sample of each resin annually for comparison against the fingerprint test. Resins

that fail the quarterly or annual test either are immediately downgraded or lose their UL

recognition. Examples of the standards for which the PVC resins are recognized are listed at

6

76 Fed. Reg. 29,539.

7 Copyright and licensing limitations prohibit the submission of this standard to the docket. The standard is

available at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/D1784.htm.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

11

Attachment 1. A similar process applies for other standards, including the ASTM standards

referenced above.

These specification and product parameters do not merely drive selection of the broader

resin subcategories (e.g., dispersion, suspension, etc.), they also dictate the polymerization

reactor ingredients needed to impart several critical resin characteristics, including particle size,

porosity, inherent viscosity, thermal stability, bulk density, and protection from degradation

resulting in off-color within each category. Example specifications are included as Attachment

3. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between resin ingredients, resin characteristics, process

equipment parameters, and end product characteristics.

Table 1: Suspension and Dispersion Process Chemistry

Ingredient Process Equipment

Parameters End Product Characteristic

Primary Suspending

Agent

Monomer droplet

formation

Residual vinyl chloride, particle size and shape,

porosity, and bulk density, finished product rheology

Secondary Dispersing

Agent

Controls agglomeration

of polymerized particles

Particle size distribution, porosity, residual vinyl

chloride, bulk density, slurry stability, reactor build up

Buffer Agents pH control of solutions Polymer chain defects influencing thermal stability,

impacts initiator activity, slurry pH control

Free Radical Chain

Initiators

Starts polymerization

reaction

Color, thermal stability, molecular weight, reaction rate,

selection based on reaction temperature

Chain Transfer Agents Rate of reaction Molecular weight, thermal stability, improved reactor

control.

Short Stop

Terminates

polymerization at optimal

conversion

Thermal stability, molecular weight, color, not used in

dispersion unless a control problem occurs

Monomer

Removal of impurities

from recycled VCM is

needed for high product

quality

Creates PVC resin particles, impurities influence resin

particle size, color, thermal stability, bulk density,

porosity, and reaction rate

Water Monomer droplet

formation

Particle size and particle size distribution, color, thermal

stability, electrical resistivity

Antioxidants Prevents formation of

undesirable peroxides

Color, thermal stability

Internal Reactor

Coatings

Facilitate closed cycle

cleanings, minimizes

employee exposure to

vinyl chloride

Batch-to-batch consistency, minimize glassy particles

and gels, minimize reactor build up

Anti-static Agents

Prevents plugging

transfer lines and silo

bridging

Prevents agglomeration of dry resin, improves

flowability of resin, improves resin apparent bulk

density, reduces static build-up on particles

A more detailed discussion on the number and types of resins, their critical role in the

manufacture of downstream products, and the role of relevant standards is enclosed as

Attachment 1. We now turn to the issues specifically raised in the notice of proposed

rulemaking.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

12

III. Stripped Resins: Significant Revisions are Needed to Emissions Limitations,

Subcategories, and Other Requirements

To limit emissions downstream of the resin stripper, EPA proposes to establish

limitations on HAP concentrations in stripped resins that would apply at all times, including

during startup and shutdown of operations. The Agency’s MACT floor analysis is based on 30-

days of resin sampling data submitted by the Working Group and other industry members.8EPA

proposes to subcategorize PVCPUs by resin type into three subcategories: bulk resins,

dispersion resins, and all other resin types. Solution resins would be incorporated into the “other

resins” category along with suspension resins.

EPA determined that concentration-based HAP limits applied at the resin stripper outlet

are appropriate because:

HAP emissions from vents associated with processes downstream of the resin

stripper are dependent on the concentration of HAP in the stripped resin. That is,

the greater the HAP concentration in the stripped resin, the greater the HAP

emissions from downstream process components. Similarly, the lower the HAP

concentration in the stripped resin, the lower the HAP emissions from

downstream process components. Consequently, limiting HAP in the stripped

resin is the best means to control HAP emissions from downstream processes.9

The Working Group supports EPA’s use of concentration-based HAP limits applied at the resin

stripper outlet as the most direct way of demonstrating compliance with respect to stripped resin.

We also agree with the Agency’s conclusion that limiting HAPs in the stripped resin is the best

means to control HAP emissions from downstream processes.

The Agency expects that PVCPUs would only need to use additional steam in existing

equipment to strip resin to the proposed limits, as necessary. The Working Group disagrees.

Steam is one of many components in the resin stripping process but it cannot be used as the sole

or primary control technique without seriously degrading the resin product. (See Attachments 4

and 5).

The Working Group also agrees with EPA that it is not technically feasible to reduce

HAP concentration limits in stripped resin to beyond-the-floor levels because such additional

incremental reductions would degrade the resin and emission reductions would be negligible.10

The Agency also considered mandating additional emission reductions by routing vents from

process components downstream of the resin stripper (e.g., resin dryers and centrifuges) to a

thermal oxidizer. Given an incremental cost effectiveness of $2.7 million per ton of vinyl

chloride reduced, over $100,000 per ton of total HAP reduced, and significant safety concerns,

8 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, at 23 (April 11, 2011).

9

76 Fed. Reg. 29,540.

10 76 Fed. Reg. 29,550. See also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037, Analysis of Beyond MACT

Floor Controls for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, at 4-5 (April 11,

2011).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

13

the Working Group agrees that it is not appropriate to impose such beyond-the-floor controls or

additional limits for stripped resins.11

The Agency requests comments on the appropriateness of its stripped resin limits, and in

particular, whether it has proposed appropriate subcategories for these limits. EPA also requests

comments on the feasibility and costs of additional steam stripping to meet the MACT floor,

including any data on performance and product degradation. We address the technical issues

related to the stripped resin limits immediately below, and address the Agency’s cost Analysis at

Attachment 6.

A. Further Subcategorization of PVC Resins is Required

Section 112(d)(1) of the Act authorizes EPA to “distinguish among classes, types and

sizes of sources within a category or subcategory.”12 In addition, subsections 112(d)(2) and (3)

pervasively refer to standards for sources in each “category or subcategory.” Thus, the Working

Group agrees that it is appropriate for EPA to subcategorize stripped resin limits by differences

in chemistry (co-monomers), raw material inputs, process equipment, resin types and grades, or

other factors, provided such categorization is reasonable.13 The Working Group objects,

however, to the Agency’s proposal to categorize resins as “bulk” and “dispersion,” with all other

resins, including copolymers, suspension blending, and suspension resins relegated to an “other

resin” category.

As currently proposed, EPA’s subcategorization scheme is textually inconsistent and will

likely cause regulatory confusion within the industry. Significantly, the Agency’s proposed

subcategories ignore critical differences in processing equipment, material inputs, and resin

morphology that have a critical and differentiating impact on the HAP profile of the various

resins. Thus, for the reasons presented in the remainder of this section, the Working Group

submits that, at a minimum, EPA should organize stripped resin limits along the following

subcategories. For homopolymers: Suspension, Dispersion, Bulk, and Blending. For

copolymers: Suspension, Dispersion, Blending, and Solution.

11 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0059, Letter from The Vinyl Institute to USEPA RE: PVC

MACT Rulemaking-Stripping Technology is MACT for the PVC Industry 09-17-2009 (September 17, 2010).

12 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1). See also Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

13 The Working Group also agrees with EPA’s determination that subcategorization is unnecessary for most of the

other emissions sources subject to the proposed PVC MACT, because these sources “have the same characteristics,

and are addressed consistently, independent of process operations or products produced.” 76 Fed. Reg. 29,532.

However, as discussed in section IV, subcategorization will be necessary for stripped resin and process vent

controls.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

14

Figure 1: Subcategorization of vinyl chloride homopolymer and copolymer resins

This proposed revision is not a radical change. The majority of vinyl chloride polymer

production falls within the suspension resin category, which would constitute overwhelmingly

the “other” resin subcategory. Blending resins and copolymers are recognized in the technical

working documents produced by ERG to support the Agency’s proposal.14 Indeed,

“copolymers” were considered definitionally distinct enough from polyvinyl chloride polymers

that EPA used the conjunctive “and Copolymers” to describe the source category being

addressed here.

We note that further subcategorization may be needed for homopolymer suspension

resins to differentiate between those resins that are easy to strip from those that are not. We are

aware that at least one Working Group member is reviewing the concentration databases

provided to EPA to determine whether the data supports such further characterization. The

Working Group and its individual members reserve the right to submit additional data and

analyses to the Agency as any additional meaningful information becomes available. None of

the Working Group members produce solution homopolymer resin or bulk resin and thus, take

no position on their subcategorization.

1. PVC Resin Subcategories Should be Revised to Address Textual

Inconsistencies and Prevent Regulatory Confusion

According to the Agency, the three proposed subcategories “are based on the type of

resin produced.”15 EPA proposes to define the “type of resin” to mean “...the broad

classification of resin referring to the basic manufacturing process for producing that resin,

including, but not limited to, the suspension, dispersion/emulsion, bulk, and solution

14 See, e.g., Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0117.3, Technical Analysis Spreadsheets - PVC -

MACT Floor, Baseline and Reductions – Resin; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0114.1,

Technical Analysis Spreadsheets - PVC Production-Control Cost Estimates – Resin; Docket Document No. EPAHQ-OAR-2002-0037-0079, Memo from C. Hayes and J. Huckaby, (ERG) to G. Nizich, USEPA re Summary of 10-

30-07 Meeting Between USEPA and VI re Remanded Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Prod NESHAP.

15 76 Fed. Reg. 29,532.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

15

processes.”16 Each of the four manufacturing processes identified in this definition also are

defined in the proposal.

The Agency also proposes to define “grade” of resin, which would mean “...the

subdivision of PVC resin classification which describes it as a unique resin, i.e., the most exact

description of a resin with no further subdivision.”17 Presumably, “grades” of resin are intended

to be a subdivision of resins under “Type of Resin,” such as “low molecular weight suspension

resins,” “general purpose suspension resin,” etc., but the proposal is silent on this usage.

The Working Group’s concerns stem from an apparent inconsistency in terminology

between the emission limits and initial and continuous compliance demonstration provisions.

The emission limits summarized at Table 1 of the proposed rule apply by type of resin.18 EPA

does not appear to distinguish between the different types of resin that make up the “other resin

type” subcategory, nor has the Agency made any reference to the commonly understood grades

of suspension resins. Yet EPA is proposing to require that PVCPUs demonstrate initial and

continuous compliance based on each “grade” of resin, not each type of resin.19 The Working

Group submits that initial and continuous compliance should be based on the type of resin.

In this regard, there is a disconnect in the proposed rule language setting out initial and

continuous compliance requirements for stripped resin. It appears that the Agency intended the

initial demonstration of compliance to be performed via a performance test on a stripper, or set

of strippers, when the PVCPU is producing the resin grade made in the largest quantity the

previous month. Conversely, the weighted average of all samples taken from all strippers on all

resin grades made that day in the PVCPU would be calculated and compared to the Table 1 or

Table 2 numerical RVCM and TOHAP limits. As EPA proposes to define a PVCPU as all the

equipment on-site used to make a particular type of resin (e.g., suspension), and most PVCPUs

have more than one reactor and more than one stripper, the stripper(s) performance test,

including specific stripper continuous parameter monitoring system (“CPMS”) conditions,

apparently would be performed simultaneously on the same day as the initial compliance

demonstration for the numerical RVCM and TOHAP limits.

As discussed elsewhere in these comments, CPMS and performance tests on resin

strippers are really not a reasonable, viable, or necessary requirement. The only initial

compliance demonstration necessary is that the grade weighted calculated RVCM and TOHAP

emission values for a 24-hour day are less than the MACT compliance numerical limit when the

PVCPU is manufacturing the grade(s) of resin that are produced in greatest quantity. The

Working Group requests that EPA clarify the initial and continuous compliance demonstration

provision for stripped resins.

16 76 Fed. Reg. 29,599 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

17 76 Fed. Reg. 29,597 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

18 76 Fed. Reg. 29,600.

19 See 76 Fed. Reg. 29,583 - 29,585 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.11960(b)(2) and (c)(3) and at Table 10 to

Subpart HHHHHHH).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

16

As proposed, based on the plain language of the definition, copolymer, blending, and

other resins in the “other resin type” subcategory would qualify as a “grade” because they

represent “the most exact description of a resin with no further subdivision.” Yet, because of the

difference in their production process and particle morphology, these products simply cannot be

stripped to achieve the same HAP concentration as the general-purpose suspension resins used to

establish the MACT floor for the “other resin” subcategory.20 Accordingly, the Working Group

submits that further subcategorization of these resins is required. The Agency’s authority to

subcategorize obviously is not unlimited and is bounded by typical notions of reasonableness.

But, as the court noted in the Brick MACT decision, “one legitimate basis for creating additional

subcategories must be the interest in keeping the relation between ‘achieved’ and ‘achievable’ in

accord with common sense and the reasonable meaning of the statute.”21

2. Process Equipment, Resin Morphology and Other Considerations Support

Further Subcategorization

The subcategories proposed by the Working Group fall well within the long-standing

practices in the PVC industry to produce specialized homopolymer and copolymer products.

Two factors are pivotal to the unique operation and functioning of the PVC industry, and the

resultant HAP profiles. First, because some process variability is inherent in even normal

operations, operational parameters are necessarily set well below regulatory limits to ensure that

the emission limits are not exceeded. Second, although resin stripping is the primary control

technology in use throughout the industry, different PVC resin recipes, morphology, and

polymer molecular weights (physical characteristics) result in different stripping performance.

See Attachment 1.

The differences in customer products and end use applications require different chemistry

(homopolymer and copolymer), resin type (equipment design and operation), and grade (recipe)

resulting in a wide variety of resin morphologies. The equipment generally is not

interchangeable, and each resin type generally is produced on a dedicated production line. The

critical factors differentiating these resins types are as follows:

Suspension Resin—Suspension polymerization of PVC involves high levels of agitation

and the use of dispersant chemicals, such as polyvinyl alcohols and methyl cellulose, to

“suspend” drops of vinyl chloride monomer in water during polymerization.22 The

process produces a slurry of granules with a typical mean grain size generally between

120 and 180 microns (m). The polymerization process is conducted in moderately

agitated reactors operating at a rate of approximately 75 to 100 revolutions per minute

(“rpm”). The rate of agitation in these reactors is intended to determine morphology,

promote heat transfer, and keep the batch suspended. The resin is concentrated by a

centrifuge and dried on a venturi flash, rotary, fluid bed, or cyclone dryer.

20 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 1.

21 Sierra Club, 479 F.3d at 885.

22 Witenhafer, Donald E. & David J. Poledna, Polymerization, in PVC Handbook 57, 60 (Charles E. Wilkes, et al.

eds., 2005 ed.).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

17

Blending Resin—Blending resins, although produced through what is technically

classified as a suspension polymerization process, have a very different morphology from

generic suspension resins. The polymerization process is conducted in highly agitated

reactors operating at a rate of approximately 150 rpm. Blending resins have a glassy

surface with very little porosity which makes stripping of vinyl chloride monomer

(“VCM”) much more complex and difficult. Blending resin particles are significantly

smaller than suspension resins, with a mean particle size ranging from 35 to 75 m,

compared to 120 – 180 m for suspension resins. The blending resin is concentrated

using a centrifuge that is specifically designed to handle very small particles, and is dried

on a rotary dryer or fludized bed dryer.

Dispersion Resin—Dispersion resins are polymerized in reactors with very low speed

and low shear agitators, operating at a rate of approximately 25 to 30 rpm. These reactors

utilize a blade design to promote the gentle blending of the polymerization contents and

avoid adverse impacts to product quality. Agitation is intended solely to promote heat

transfer. Dispersion particles range in size from 1 to 10 m. The dewatering and drying

systems are uniquely designed to address the very small particle sizes (similar to talcum

powder). Accordingly, the resin is concentrated using a reverse osmosis membrane and

dried on a spray dryer.

Bulk Resin—Bulk resins are polymerized in autoclaves (horizontal reactors). The

polymerization process does not use any water or suspending agents. The liquid vinyl

chloride monomer and reaction initiator are charged to a premix reactor where some

polymerization occurs to set particle size. This premixed batch is then transferred to an

autoclave (horizontal reactor with horizontal agitator) where the liquid monomer is

eventually converted to all polymer (PVC). Stripping is done in the autoclave once the

reaction is complete. Stripping is accomplished using steam sweeping of the autoclave

vapor space containing the polymer. No drying step or drying equipment is required.

Solution Resin—Solution resins are a process for producing polyvinyl chloride resin that

is characterized by the anhydrous formation of the polymer through precipitation.

Polymerization occurs in an organic solvent in the presence of an initiator where vinyl

chloride monomer and co-monomers are soluble in the solvent, but the polymer is not.

The PVC polymer is a granule suspended in the solvent, which then precipitates out of

the solution. Emulsifiers and suspending agents are not used in the solution process.

PVC resins produced using the solution process are referred to as solution resins.

To reiterate, the differences in customer products and end use applications require

different chemistry (homopolymer and copolymer), resin type (equipment design and operation),

and grade (recipe) resulting in a wide variety of resin morphologies. These morphologies

generate differences in HAP profiles. Each resin type will contain a predictable range of HAPs

after stripping, but the actual concentrations within these ranges will vary widely based on the

polymer’s morphology and molecular weight.

We would note that the lack of porosity makes blending resins much more difficult to

strip than suspension resins. The Agency will need to provide a definition for “blending” resins

at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005, and we recommend the following text:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

18

Blending resins are produced by the suspension polymerization process, but have

a unique recipe and are subject to specific operating parameters that differentiate

these resins from suspension resins. The recipe and specific operating conditions

produce resin morphology with little or no porosity.

3. Copolymers are a Completely Different Chemistry From Homopolymers

and Must be Regulated Through Their Own Subcategories

Turning to copolymers, the Working Group submits that PVC homopolymers and

copolymers are different “products” that cannot be regulated as one category. EPA defines

a “product” in the proposed rule as:

a polymer produced using the same monomers and varying in additives (e.g.,

initiators, terminators, etc.); catalysts; or in the relative proportions of monomers,

that is manufactured by a process unit. With respect to polymers, more than one

recipe may be used to produce the same product, and there can be more than one

grade of a product. Product also means a chemical that is not a polymer, which is

manufactured by a process unit. Byproducts, isolated intermediates, impurities,

wastes, and trace contaminants are not considered products.23

EPA proposes to define a PVC copolymer as:

a synthetic thermoplastic polymer that is derived from the simultaneous

polymerization of vinyl chloride and another vinyl monomer such as vinyl

acetate. Polyvinyl chloride copolymer is produced by different processes,

including, but not limited to, suspension, dispersion/emulsion, bulk, and solution

processes.

PVC copolymer resins are based on a completely different chemistry requiring the presence of

multiple monomers at varying concentrations. Indeed, “copolymers” were considered

definitionally distinct enough from polyvinyl chloride polymers that EPA used the conjunctive

“and Copolymers” to describe the source category being addressed here.24

EPA should subcategorize copolymers by the resin type because they are capable of

being manufactured in different processes (suspension, dispersion, and solution) that present

completely different HAP emission profiles. For example, vinyl acetate monomer (“VAM”) is a

VCM copolymer that contains 5-15% VAM. This type of PVC copolymer has a very different

residual VCM and HAP profile than a copolymer produced with a different VCM-monomer

chemical combination and production process.

The general class of copolymers requires differentiation from the homopolymer category.

Within this copolymer class there are different resin types (suspension, dispersion, blending and

solution) that require subcategorization similar to homopolymers. For each resin type, however,

the choice of co-monomer creates different HAP profiles impacting the HAPs analyzed. Comonomers are chosen based on the end product characteristics specified by the customer.

23 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

24 Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 Fed.

Reg. 31,576 (July 16, 1992).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

19

The building blocks of any PVC resin are monomer, initiators, and suspending agents

(Section II, Table 1). In a copolymer, an additional building block is added in the form of an

additional monomer. This monomer polymerizes and combines with these other building blocks

in different ways. Some are totally consumed in the polymerization resulting in no impact on the

HAP of the resin. Others react to some degree of conversion (similar to vinyl chloride) and

could have an impact on resin HAPs. This is strictly a function of the monomer selected and the

customer specifications the copolymer needs to meet.

Since there are multiple co-monomers used by the PVC industry, it is impossible to

establish a single copolymer MACT for any resin type. Limits by particular analyte have no

meaning across the industry because various co-monomers are used to meet specific customer

needs. HAP limits need to be determined individually based on the co-monomer used and

whether that co-monomer generates any HAP in the resin.

Fick’s law will determine the diffusion rate of the comonomer and it will be a different

diffusion rate for the base monomer. Since it is a copolymer, the glass transition temperature

(Tg) of the resin is typically lower which will hinder the practice of increasing the temperature

for improved stripping because of its effects on reducing thermal stability. The reactivity of the

comonomer is a third consideration since any unconverted comonomer must be stripped in

addition to the VCM. The amount of conversion, diffusion rate of the comonomer, and Tg of

the copolymer determine the ease of stripping of the resin. Ultimately, the final PVC MACT

rule must allow for the manufacture of these diverse products and resin types.

The Working Group has provided EPA with a database of actual concentration based

sampling results from the 30-day testing mandated by the Agency’s section 114 Request that

identifies the data collected by product and resin type for all the subcategories proposed above.

With the exception of vinyl chloride for which the Working Group is providing EPA with four

years of compliance sampling data (see Attachment 7), the Agency should use the 30-day

sampling data as a basis for determining the final MACT floor for non-vinyl chloride HAPs in

stripped resins for all products and subcategories.

B. Stripped Resin Limits Must be Revised to Address Statutory and Calculation

Errors and Allow for HAP Variability of Different Resin Recipes

No facility in the industry can meet the stripped resin RVCM limits proposed by EPA.25

Unfortunately, there were critical errors in the development of these limits, and all PVCPUs will

be unable to comply with the proposed limits unless they are correctly recalculated. The vinyl

chloride limit for stripped resin was developed using data obtained pursuant to Method 8260B, a

method not used in the PVC industry for resin testing that consistently underreports vinyl

chloride concentration in resin. Yet the industry, according to the proposed rule, must

demonstrate compliance using Method 107, which is more sensitive and accurate, and will

consistently yield compliance sampling results that are above the proposed limits.

25 The only exception is the sole bulk resin facility, and as will quickly become apparent, solely because EPA

correctly used Method 107 data. It is also important that as the sole source in the category, EPA accepted their

VCM NESHAP data as MACT.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

20

Although the Working Group agrees that EPA should consider emissions variability in

setting the MACT floor for stripped resin, the Agency used an incorrect statistical factor in its

calculation, which further exacerbated the problem. The Working Group generally supports

EPA’s applications of an upper predictive limit (”UPL”) to include variability in the limits for

stripped resin, particularly given the limited amount of data available for other organic HAPs.

The Agency failed, however, to adequately account for the ingredient and process variability of

PVC resin recipes, particularly as EPA is proposing to require daily vinyl chloride compliance

monitoring. Ultimately, the Working Group submits that stripped resin limits based on

TOHAP (which includes vinyl chloride) is the most relevant starting point and only

workable approach for developing limits that comply with the Act and provide the product

flexibility needed by the industry’s downstream customers.

1. Total Organic HAP and Vinyl Chloride Limits for Stripped Resin Should

be Recalculated Using Vinyl Chloride Data Analyzed by EPA Method 107

According to the Agency’s MACT Floor Analysis, in order to determine vinyl chloride

and TOHAP concentrations in resin for the required sampling period, “vinyl chloride

concentrations as a result of Method 107, where indicated, were excluded from the data set.”26

Nevertheless, EPA proposes to require the use of Method 107 to demonstrate compliance with

the vinyl chloride limits for stripped resin.27

Vinyl Institute members initially believed that Method 8260B would be an appropriate

method for analyzing HAPs, including vinyl chloride, in PVC resin.28 During initial sampling,

however, it became apparent that Method 8260B significantly underreported RVCM. Due to

time constraints of the section 114 request, it was not possible to modify, validate, and seek EPA

approval of modified sample preparation and analysis procedures for the 30-day stripped resin

program.

EPA Method 8260B was developed to identify and sample analytes in water and soils and

has now been shown to be an ineffective method for quantitatively recovering VCM, and VCM

impurities, from the PVC resin matrix. Indeed, Working Group members noticed that vinyl

chloride concentrations reported from Method 8260B were significantly lower than those

reported for the same samples using EPA Method 107, as much as 4 to 5 times lower. For

example, a stripped resin sample might be reported as containing 100 ppm vinyl chloride using

Method 107, but the value reported using Method 8260B would range from 20 to 25 ppm.

Figures 2 and 3 starkly illustrate the Working Group’s contention that using Method 8260B to

set the floor, combined with Method 107 to demonstrate compliance ensures that PVCPUs would

always violate the Agency’s proposed vinyl chloride limits.

26 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, MACT Floor Analysis for the Polyvinyl Chloride and

Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, at 28 (April 11, 2011).

27 76 Fed. Reg. 29,585 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11960(d)(3)).

28 The PVC MACT Working Group was not formed at this time.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

21

Section 114 - 30 Day Sampling Period

PolyOne - Pedricktown

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

23-Nov-09 3-Dec-09 13-Dec-09 23-Dec-09 2-Jan-10 12-Jan-10 22-Jan-10

Daily RVCM (ppm)

8260B

Method 107

Proposed Limit

Figure 2: Comparison of Method 107 and 8260B samples for best performing dispersion resin facility

These figures were developed using the entire 30-day sampling data set solely from the

best performing facility for dispersion and suspension resins, respectively, as identified by EPA.

The horizontal line in the charts above and below reflect the Agency’s proposed limits for

stripped resins calculated using Method 8260B data. The square points represent Method 107

data samples taken at the same location on the same day as the Method 8260B data. The figure

shows that Method 107 consistently produces results greater than those obtained using Method

8260B and that even the best performing sites in each PVC resin type category would be unable

to comply as the rule is currently written.

Section 114 - 30 Day Sampling Period

Formosa - Point Comfort

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

2/6/2010 2/11/2010 2/16/2010 2/21/2010 2/26/2010 3/3/2010 3/8/2010 3/13/2010

Daily RVCM (ppm)

8260B

Method 107

Proposed Limit

Figure 3: Comparison of Method 107 and 8260B samples for best performing suspension resin facility
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

22

Further analysis of the Method 107 and Method 8260B databases shows conclusively (as

do the preceding figures) that a statistically significant difference does in fact exist between the

sampling values reported by the two methods. To demonstrate this difference, a student t-test

was performed on all the Method 8260B and 107 data in the database. The Working Group

excluded data from two facilities that had used a modified 8260B methodology.29 A simple

review of the averages demonstrates that the results of Method 107 are greater than those

obtained using Method 8260B. Furthermore, since the two-tailed probability is less than alpha =

0.001, the null hypothesis may be rejected and it can be said with 99.9% certainty that the two

data sets are not equivalent.

TABLE 2: t-Test: 30-Day Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Method 107 Method 8260B

Mean (ppmw) 13.689 4.362

Variance 790.474 212.188

Observations 371 375

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00

df 554

t Stat 5.680

P(T<=t) one-tail 1.089E-08

t Critical one-tail 3.105

P(T<=t) two-tail 2.178E-08

t Critical two-tail 3.308

The Working Group further considered whether a conversion factor could be applied to

the Method 8260B data, assuming such an approach is even permissible under the Act.

However, the data shows that the difference between the tests methods is highly variable. This

variability could be due to a number of factors ranging from particle morphology to laboratory

procedures. The variability in Table 3 demonstrates conclusively that no simple correlation

between the two methods exists.

TABLE 3: Variability between Method 8260B and 107 30-Day Samples

Facility Method 8260B Method 107 % Difference

FPC- LA 0.591 0.547 -7.39%

FPC-TX 0.151 0.659 335.89%

Oxy DP 0.199 3.205 1514.02%

Shintech PL 0.540 2.015 273.25%

Shintech AD 0.579 3.016 420.80%

Shintech TX 0.772 6.808 781.70%

Oxy Ptown 2.516 7.696 205.89%

Oxy Pas 2.824 4.634 64.10%

Westlake -LA 8.264 84.355 920.77%

Westlake-KY 29.370 29.255 -0.39%

P1-Ptown 95.649 195.736 104.64%

29 In an effort to emulate the Method 107 conditioning step, the Company asked the analytical laboratory to pre-treat

stripped resin samples during the 30-day test period at 90°C for one hour, instead of using the standard

soil/methanol preparation used by all the other laboratories. This approach was separately approved by EPA, but

was not included because it is not available for any other facilities.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

23

TABLE 3: Variability between Method 8260B and 107 30-Day Samples

Facility Method 8260B Method 107 % Difference

P1-Henry 113.800 339.847 198.64%

FPC DE 174.819 641.476 266.94%

Commercial environmental laboratories, including those used by Working Group

members to analyze the 30-day stripped resin samples, use standard room temperature soil

extraction techniques developed for solid matrices. In contrast, Method 107 (see Attachment 8

for a copy of Method 107) was developed to be the definitive analytical procedure for

determining vinyl chloride concentrations in PVC resin. The method is designed to take

advantage of the vapor equilibrium that is established at a constant known temperature, and in a

closed system, between vinyl chloride, PVC resin, water, and air. Specifically, the sample

conditioning step (90°C for one hour) ensures that the resin sample is above the glass transition

temperature allowing the unhindered migration of vinyl chloride monomer from the resin particle

into the container headspace for measurement by the analytical instrumentation. Unlike Method

8260B, which uses a room temperature methanol extraction pretreatment for soil samples,

Method 107 is much less susceptible to resin morphology and consistently achieves higher

recovery of vinyl chloride from any PVC resin, regardless of morphology, so long as the 90oC

temperature is maintained.

As the Agency is aware,30 the Working Group has for the past year conducted a method

development study of a hybrid sampling method that uses the Method 107 sample conditioning

step and Method 8260B purge and trap configured for water samples.31 Because Method 8260B

provides very good separation of compounds via gas chromatograph (“GC”), and uses a mass

spectrometer (“MS”) detector, Working Group members were aware that such a hybrid method

would even identify and quantify chemicals that co-elute on the GC column and appear as a

single peak/single chemical.

Initial tests suggested that the hybrid method could provide comparable results to Method

107 for vinyl chloride in stripped PVC resin samples. However, the hybrid method does cause

problems with moisture carryover to the purge and trap system, subjecting the measurement

system to increased drift instability and maintenance down-time. The hybrid method also

exhibited more problems with repeatability of standards and samples, resulting in higher relative

standard deviations for some HAPs and potential non-conformance with 8260B quality control

criteria. In addition, only a single laboratory has performed this method and no inter-laboratory

study has been conducted to demonstrate method variability among different laboratories.

Preliminary conclusions are that the hybrid method is a difficult and expensive method for any

30 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0050.2, VI Cover Letter to EPA RE: ECI Update on Resin

Test Methods (September 24, 2010); Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0094, E-mail from Richard

Krock to Jodi Howard RE: Report to Vinyl Institute by ECI of Phase I Resin Test Method Development (November

1, 2010).

31 The Method 8260B soil preparation method consists of mixing the soil at room temperature with methanol.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

24

laboratory to implement for routine compliance monitoring because it would require highly

skilled personnel, and even then, exhibits limited throughput, and at a relatively high cost.32

Accordingly, the Working Group submits that the Agency’s continued use of Method

8260B concentration data to set limits for vinyl chloride in stripped resin, in light of an available,

approved, more accurate method (Method 107), would violate the Act’s mandate that EPA set

MACT floors based on emission levels actually achieved by the best performing PVCPUs. In

addition, emission limits that are set on the basis of a sampling method that under-reports the

concentration of the HAP it is intended to detect, provides no benefit to the public, and of a more

immediate concern, undermines efforts to ensure that downstream customers have accurate

information about residual vinyl chloride levels in PVC.

The use of Method 107 for setting the MACT floor for all PVC polymers and copolymer

has already been endorsed and applied by the Agency in its May 20 proposal. The Agency uses

Method 107 data to calculate the floor for bulk resins.33 The Working Group submits that EPA

must likewise calculate vinyl chloride concentration limits for all subcategories of resin using

Method 107 data, which the industry also submitted to the Agency,34 and certified at the

Agency’s request. (See Attachment 7).

2. Dispersion Resin Limits Should be Based on Measured Concentration

Data and Not Calculated Mass Figures

Unlike the suspension and bulk resins, EPA developed vinyl chloride limits for stripped

dispersion resins by purportedly taking each facility’s reported HAP mass value (in dry pounds

per day) and dividing it by the total production rate (in dry pounds per day) for the strippers from

which the sample was taken.35 As the Working Group previously advised the Agency, however,

there were inconsistencies in the way each facility reported these mass values:

...in the absence of specific instructions in the 114 Request, inconsistent methods

were used to convert HAP concentrations to pounds per day, dry. For instance,

some facilities used production volume from the entire plant while others used

only the volume from the production lines being sampled. Our review of the data

submitted to EPA also reveals that moisture corrections to the wet resin portion of

the stripper bottom stream were applied inconsistently. Some, but not all,

32 See Environmental Chemistry, Inc., Phase II HAPs Method Development Study, May 11, 2011, and cover letter

from Environmental Chemistry, Inc. to The Vinyl Institute re Additional Recommendations, Implementation of

Hybrid Method 8260 for HAPs Compliance Monitoring for PVC MACT 07-26-2011, both of which are included as

Attachment 9.

33 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 34-35 and Attachment E.

34 Given that Working Group members were collecting Method 107 data during the section 114 sampling period, as

required by the VCM NESHAP, the Method 107 data was submitted to EPA with the Method 8260B concentration

data set. See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0047.2, VI Letter to USEPA Conveying PVC MACT

Resin Test Concentrations 9-16-10 (September 16, 2010); see also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-

0037-0041.1, Industry Wide Concentration Data Aggregation 09-16-10 (September 16, 2010); Docket Document

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0048, Email from Richard Krock to Jodi Howard Subject: Vinyl Institute Updated

Concentration Data Base for PVC Resin (09-28-2010) (September 28, 2011).

35 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 24 and Attachment F-1.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

25

manufacturers corrected for dry resin reporting basis. Of these, some corrected

for dry resin reporting basis using the measured solids content of a split sample,

but not all. We also determined that detection limits were not reported

consistently in the spreadsheets submitted to the Agency. In some cases the value

reported represents the method detection limit, in others it is the quantitation limit,

whereas other members used estimates below the reporting limit.36

Given that these inconsistencies stemmed from efforts to convert the actual resin sampling

results, which are reported in HAP concentration values, to mass values, the Working Group

recommended that EPA simply use the underlying measured concentration data as the best and

most accurate basis from which to develop the PVC MACT. Accordingly, the Working Group

compiled the HAP concentration results for all facilities in an Excel database, including Method

8260B and Method 107 that each facility collected concurrently, and submitted it to EPA.

As discussed earlier, EPA opted to use the concentration data for suspension, but opted to

use the mass data and back calculate concentration limits for dispersion resins. The resulting

daily average vinyl chloride concentration limits set out in Docket Document No. EPA-HQOAR-2002-0037-100 at page 24 and Attachment F-1 do not compare to any of the actual

samples collected using either Method 107 or Method 8260B.

Although the Agency explains its methodology at page 24, it did not provide the actual

numbers used in the calculation due to confidential business information constraints on

production volumes, so it is difficult to verify the Agency’s approach. The Working Group

suspects, however, that EPA incorrectly divided the mass numbers by production rates for the

entire facility rather than the rate from the individual stripper. Rather than attempting to back

calculate concentration limits from mass values that likely were developed inconsistently, EPA

simply should use actual Method 107 sampling results (for the reasons discussed in Section

II(B)(1) above) to develop dispersion limits, as it has for suspension and bulk resins.

3. EPA Should Apply a Compliance Averaging Factor of 1 to Properly

Estimate the Future Variability of Daily Resin Stripping Limits for Vinyl

Chloride

The Agency has sought to incorporate variability in several of its rulemakings, but the

only case to uphold an EPA variability analysis, coincidentally, involved the PVC MACT rule

initially promulgated in 2002, but vacated and remanded on other grounds by Mossville Envt’l

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“PVC MACT Case”). It is important to

note that the Agency argued to the court that:

in this case, determining the best five sources was impossible. This is because of

the great variability in RVCM emissions, and the fact that that variability is a

result of the type of resin being produced, not the technology or processes applied

to control emission...According to the EPA, there can even be great variability in

RVCM emission at the same PVC plant, which would obviously employ the same

technology and processes on a day-to-day basis, if that plant produces a variety of

36 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0047.2, VI Letter to USEPA Conveying PVC MACT Resin Test

Concentrations 9-16-10 (September 16, 2010).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

26

resins, which most do....With comparisons between plants impossible, and

emission variations not related to technological performance, the EPA claims it

was unable to select the best five sources. Therefore, after considering other

alternatives, it determined that since all twenty-eight PVC plants were subject to

the Part 61 NESHAP, those standards estimated the best five performing

sources.37

These considerations remain true today, and despite the Agency’s best efforts, it is simply not

possible to fit PVC homopolymers and copolymers into the commodity chemical paradigm of a

simple and uniform product recipe process.

The Working Group supports the Agency’s efforts to account for variability in setting

MACT floor limits, and in particular, use of the UPL for doing so. As the Agency notes in the

preamble to the proposed rule “[w]e account for variability of the best-controlled source in

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is

reasonable to assess best performance over time.”38 It is axiomatic that the Act requires facilities

to comply 100% of the time with emissions limits that are based on the average level actually

achieved by the five best performing facilities. No process is without variability, however, and

the data used to determine the MACT compliance levels is only a snapshot in time, so there must

be some way to account for variations in the process, products, etc.

Document No. EPA-OAR-HQ-2002-0037-0100 sets out the Agency’s process for

incorporating the variability of emissions. To summarize, when calculating the UPL to account

for variability of emissions associated with stripped resin, EPA set the number of future

observations for the compliance average, the variable “m,” at 30. According to the Agency’s

statistical methodology, use of m=30 indicates that 30 daily composite samples will be averaged

to demonstrate compliance. In fact, the proposed rule requires that each daily composite sample

comply with the vinyl chloride stripped resin limit on a daily basis. The Working Group fully

supports the Agency’s inclusion of a daily limit for vinyl chloride. This is the current industry

practice and provides resin stripper performance information on a near real-time basis. We

submit, however, that the Agency erred and should have used a value of 1 or m=1 in calculating

the stripped resin limits because it requires one daily observation to demonstrate compliance.

Of relevance here, both the mass and concentration databases used by EPA to develop

stripped resin limits for both vinyl chloride and other HAPs were populated with daily

observations from each facility. The Working Group submits that as the data populating the

database used in setting the floor are daily values and as the demonstration of compliance is

required to be a daily value, there is only a single observation for each day and, therefore, m=1

should be the compliance averaging factor. To use any other value for m would be to imply that

the database used in setting the floor was comprised of individual 8-hour stripper samples, which

was not the case.

37 Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted) (“PVC

MACT Case”).

38 76 Fed. Reg. 29,544.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

27

As a resolution, the Working Group is submitting four years (2007 – 2010) worth of daily

RVCM compliance averages. This information was collected, analyzed, and reported as required

under the current Part 61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP. It is more reflective of the emission levels

actually achieved by the industry than the snapshot provided by the 30-day sampling data. The

database is significantly large such that use of the UPL statistical tool, and subsequently the use

of m=1, becomes unnecessary. A percentile calculation approach is more appropriate for a

dataset of this size.

4. EPA Should Apply a Compliance Averaging Factor of 12 to Properly

Estimate the Future Variability of Monthly Resin Stripping Limit for

TOHAP

A similar discussion of the use of the m value is warranted for the Total HAP variability

calculations. Of relevance here, both the mass and concentration databases used by EPA to

develop stripped resin limits for HAPs were populated with daily averages from each facility.

Compliance requires that a 24-hour average composite sample from each stripping column, or

from each group of strippers processing the same resin type, be obtained each month. Since

compliance is based on 24-hour composite samples (daily averages) and the database is

populated with daily averages, there is no opportunity for averaging and the correct factor for m

is 1. However, after the first 13 months, compliance must be demonstrated based on a 12-month

rolling average concentration, calculated as the average of the 12 most recent 24-hour arithmetic

average concentrations. Because the limit is then based on an average of 12 daily averages, the

correct factor for m becomes 12.

EPA set the number of future observations for the compliance average, the variable “m,”

at 30. This suggests that 30 samples will be used to meet the 12-month rolling average, when in

fact the average includes only 12 samples. Thus, the Working Group submits that the correct m

factor for use in this case is 12.

5. EPA Should Have Applied a UPL of 99.9% to Properly Estimate the

Future Variability of Daily Resin Stripping Limits for Vinyl Chloride

Turning to the Agency’s UPL approach, EPA proposes to apply a 99% UPL factor in

setting stripped resin floor limits. The Agency’s UPL analysis was performed on a data set

consisting of a daily average. These readings are to be assessed against a compliance frequency

that also requires a daily average. According to the Agency’s background documents, a 99%

UPL means that “one can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below a MACT

floor emission limit calculated using a UPL.”39 Thus, it follows that a facility that is statistically

able to meet a daily MACT floor emission limit 99 percent of the time will be out of compliance

once per every 100 samples.

Put another way, each of the five best performing facilities whose data was used to

establish the MACT floor, would be expected to be out of compliance once every 100 days, or

multiple times per year.

39 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 4.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

28

4 Yr Method 107 Daily Weighted RVCM Averages (Top 5 Sites Only)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Dec-06

Jun-07

Jan-08

Jul-08

Feb-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Oct-10

Daily Weighted RVCM Averages(ppm)

99%

Top 5 Sites - Daily Weighted Averages

99.9%

Figure 4: Percentile comparison for best 5 performing facilities for VCM

The chart above summarizes vinyl chloride limits for suspension resin developed using four

years of Method 107 compliance data. The database is sufficiently large, over 5,000 data points,

that the use of the UPL to assess variability is not warranted. Thus, the 99th and 99.9th

percentiles were calculated directly using Microsoft Excel’s percentile function. The chart

shows that application of the 99% percentile does not accurately demonstrate emissions levels

continuously achieved by the top performers. In fact, further analysis of the data proves that on

52 days, members of the top 5 would be unable to meet the limit. In other words, on average, a

top-performing site would be out of compliance 2.6 days per year. The Working Group submits

that use of a 99% UPL does not comport with the D.C. Circuit’s charge that the best performing

facility must meet the limit “every day and under all operating conditions.”40

As further demonstrated by the chart, even utilization of the 99.9th percentile does not

address all variability. Facilities comprising the top 5 would meet the MACT emission

limitation 999 days out of every 1,000, or a single day out of compliance every 2.7 years. In the

Working Group’s view, this approach is much more consistent with the court’s direction to EPA.

Therefore, the Working Group is submitting that direct application of the 99.9th percentile to the

four year database be used to calculate the daily vinyl chloride emission limit.

The accompanying database is enclosed as Attachment 7 and was submitted to the

Agency on electronic media via separate cover.41 Similar data and charts are also provided for

dispersion resins at Attachment 7.

40 PVC MACT Case, 370 F.3d at 1242.

41 The Working Group notes that the four-year Method 107 database averaged daily performance for the three

PVCPUs comprising the Shintech facility in Freeport, Texas. Pursuant to its EPA-aproved sampling plan, however,

the facility sampled only one PVCPU during the section 114 30-day testing program.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

29

C. EPA’s Proposal to Regulate Stripped Resin Using TOHAPs is the Correct

Approach

The PVC industry has not stood still since the Part 61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP was first

promulgated, and in consultation with customers, has sought to reduce vinyl chloride

concentrations in stripped resin (and thus the resulting finished product). Over the past 30 years,

average vinyl chloride concentrations in suspension PVC resins, even for hard to strip low

porosity resin grades, have been reduced to levels well below 100 ppm. This reduction has

occurred even though federal regulations required only that levels of 400 ppm be met.

For example, a ranking of suspension PVC facilities by TOHAP indicates that vinyl

chloride is less than 16% (using Method 107 data) of the TOHAP for the top 5 performers, and is

less than 10% of the TOHAP for 4 of the top 5. When looking at all 12 suspension PVC

facilities, all but one facility exhibits less than 16% vinyl chloride content of their respective

TOHAP. Given vinyl chloride’s carcinogenicity, it remains a point of emphasis and separate

attention when considering HAPs in stripped resin. As the database indicates, however, other

HAPs also play an important role.

1. Best Performing Stripped Resin Facilities Should be Identified by

TOHAPs

The Agency proposes limitations on TOHAPs in stripped resin based on 30-day sampling

data submitted by Working Group members in response to the Agency’s section 114 request.

For example, existing facilities would be subject to a TOHAP limit of 76 ppmw for suspension

resins from existing sources, whereas new sources must meet 42 ppmw. Dispersion resin

facilities would be required to meet 110 ppmw and 58 ppmw, respectively. The Working Group

agrees with EPA that TOHAP is the appropriate parameter for limiting emissions of site-specific

TOHAPs for the PVC resin dewatering and drying process train. Stripped resin limits based on

TOHAPs (which includes vinyl chloride) are the most relevant starting point and only workable

approach for developing limits that comply with the Act, and also provide the product flexibility

needed by the industry’s downstream customers. As the Agency notes:

A total HAP limit is appropriate because emissions from PVC facilities are

comprised of mixtures of these HAP, and the control technologies used to control

total HAP such as condensers and thermal oxidizers, achieve control of the

individual HAP.42

In contemplating the various resin recipes, it is important to understand that in addition to

ingredients, processing parameters also are varied to produce various products. In fact,

individual resin recipes normally include different reactor temperature profiles, reactor pressure,

etc. The slurry stripper operating parameters are also usually different for different products,

including residence time/slurry feed rate, steam feed rate, temperature at various column

locations, pressure/vacuum, etc.

Indeed, slurry stripper operation can be highly variable depending on the product being

processed, and may even be modified, depending on how a particular batch of a single product is

42 76 Fed. Reg. 29,540.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

30

polymerized in the reactor. For example, higher than normal vinyl chloride at the slurry stripper

due to a glassy resin morphology may require the operator to slow the feed to extend residence

time in the stripping column. In many ways, PVC and copolymer resin production may be

analogized to making dough. Flour (vinyl chloride) is always present in the recipe although in

varying quantities, but the other ingredients vary even more.

As Figures 5, 6 and 7 below illustrate, a cook may or may not use eggs, butter, water,

milk, etc., and the oven temperature will vary, yet in attempting to control the ingredients

individually, the recipe may change fundamentally. The following charts support this analogy.

Rather than eggs, butter, water, and milk, the PVC process utilizes ingredients that may

potentially result in HAP emissions, such as acetophenone, methanol, and isopropyl benzene.

The charts also demonstrate that the residual concentration of these HAPs, at the same site, is

generally dependent on the resin grade (recipe) being produced.

Georgia Gulf - Aberdeen

30 Day Sampling Results - Isopropyl benzene

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP

HMWHMWHMWHMWHMW

LMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMW

Grade of Resin (GP = General Purpose, HMW = High Molecular Weight, LMW = Low Molecular Weight)

Residual Concentraion in Stripped Resin (ppm)

Figure 5: Georgia Gulf – Aberdeen, 30 Day Sampling Results – Isopropyl benzene

Section 112(d)(1) of the Act requires EPA to set emission standards for every HAP

emitted from each category or subcategory of major sources. As the court in the Brick MACT

Case explained, “EPA has a ‘clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed

HAP,’ which does not allow it to ‘avoid setting standards for HAPs not controlled with

technology.’”43 Following this decision, the Agency has interpreted its statutory obligation that

it determine the level of emissions control achieved by “the best controlled similar unit” to

require EPA to identify a top-performing unit on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, rather than one

unit that is the best controlled overall. The Agency suggested that such an approach is

43 Sierra Club, 479 F.3d at 883.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

31

permissible as “[t]here do not appear to be any conflicts where meeting the standard for one

pollutant may jeopardize the achievability of meeting another pollutant’s limit.”44

Oxy - Pasadena

30 Day Sampling Results - Methanol

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP

LMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMW

Grade of Resin (GP = General Purpose, HMW = High Molecular Weight, LMW = Low Molecular Weight)

Residual Concentraion in Stripped Resin (ppm)

Figure 6: Oxy - Pasadena, 30 Day Sampling Results – Methanol

Oxy - Pasadena

30 Day Sampling Results - Acetophenone

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP

LMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMWLMW

Grade of Resin (GP = General Purpose, HMW = High Molecular Weight, LMW = Low Molecular Weight)

Residual Concentraion in Stripped Resin (ppm)

Figure 7: Oxy - Pasadena, 30 Day Sampling Results – Acetonphenone

44 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources:

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, 74 Fed. Reg. 51,368, 51,380-51,381 (October 6, 2009).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

32

This rulemaking presents such a case, as there is conflict between the pollutant limits.

According to the Agency’s background document:

To determine the total organic HAP concentration for the sampling period, the

individual HAP concentrations reported for any given day were summed resulting

in a daily total HAP concentration. Each daily total HAP concentration was then

averaged for all days for which sampling results were reported.45

In evaluating the feasibility of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach for stripped resin, the Working

Group followed a more conservative approach than EPA. Rather than develop a daily TOHAP

average as the Agency had done, the Working Group first sought to develop average daily limits

on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

Using the 30-day concentration database, the Working Group calculated the 30-day

average for each HAP at each reporting facility, except for vinyl chloride. The vinyl chloride 30-

day average was calculated using four years of daily Method 107 compliance sampling data

submitted to EPA with these comments. Next, the Working Group identified the five facilities

with the lowest 30-day average for each HAP, and set a pollutant-by-pollutant limit using the

average of each five-facility set. Without compensating for variability, the Working Group then

compared the 30-day sampling data set against the calculated limits.

Percentage of Days out of Compliance Based on Individual

HAP Averages

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

FPC- LA

FPC-TX

GG-Aberdeen

GG-Plaquemine

Oxy DP

Oxy Pas

Oxy Ptown

Shintech AD

Shintech PL

Shintech TX

Westlake -LA

Westlake-KY

P1-Henry

Figure 8: Percentage of Days out of compliance based on Individual HAP Averages

As Figure 8 illustrates, over a 30-day period, all PVC facilities failed to comply with at

least one pollutant-by-pollutant limit 100 percent of the time. The Working Group next

incorporated variability into the pollutant-by-pollutant approach by comparing the sampling data

against a 99% UPL / 3x detection limit developed for each individual HAP, except VC, as its

data set was sufficiently large to warrant direct percentile application. Figure 9 illustrates that

45 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 28.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

33

even with variability incorporated for each HAP, one facility actually would achieve the

proposed limits approximately 65% of the time and another approximately 15% of the time.

Figure 9: Percentage of days out of compliance based on individual HAP averages (variability included)

The difference between the Oxy DP facility and all others is not surprising given that it produces

mostly high molecular weight resins that exhibit higher porosity and thus, are easier to strip.

Based on these results, the Working Group submits that a pollutant-by-pollutant approach

will not reflect an emission level that is achieved by the best performing facilities in the industry

due to the variability in emissions across the best performing facilities, consistent with the

court’s observations in the PVC MACT Case. Further, “interpretations of a statute which would

produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the

legislative purpose are available.”46 This analysis leads to the conclusion that EPA appropriately

set TOHAP limits for stripped resin to “set emission standards for each listed HAP” within the

TOHAP group and, thereby, sets standards for HAPs controlled with technology, as explained in

the Brick MACT Case.

The Working Group does, however, submit that the TOHAP calculations performed by

the Agency should be revised as follows:

 Method 107 results for vinyl chloride should be used in lieu of Method 8260B when

calculating any and all MACT floors.

 The Agency should account for all HAPs in setting the MACT floor. Worksheet VITOH-S, existing in file EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0117.3, contains the HAP

calculations. When adding the individual HAPs to calculate a total daily HAP

loading, only columns AX – BP were summed. Columns BQ through CA were

46 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982); see also Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala,

140 F.3d 1060, 1068 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

34

excluded from the calculation. The Working Group agrees that methyl ethyl ketone,

column BQ, was correctly excluded as it is not a listed HAP. However, the analytes

listed in BR – CA, which includes vinyl chloride, should be included in the TOHAP

summation.

Alternatively, the Group submits that a summation of each individual HAP limit, based on

variability calculations as described above, be used as the compliance limit, rather than a limit

based on the Upper Predictive Limit of total daily HAP loading as provided in the proposed rule.

2. Definition of TOHAP for Suspension PVC

As a preliminary matter, the Working Group submits that EPA should change all

instances of the term “total HAP” in the regulatory text and tables to “Total Organic HAP” or

“TOHAP.” The preamble and rule language define neither “HAP” nor “total HAP,” but in any

event the Agency should provide a specific definition for TOHAPs as the term has a specific

meaning in this proposed rule:

Total Organic HAP (TOHAP) means the sum of organic HAP concentrations

detected in a stripped resin or vent gas emission pursuant to site-specific HAP

lists and sampling/analysis plans developed to demonstrate compliance with the

MACT emission limits. Moreover, Total Organic HAP is limited to those organic

HAP compounds that have been identified as being present at, and potentially

emitted from, a PVCPU.

One purpose of the preceding definition is to ensure that EPA and the PVC industry can

continue to use process knowledge and analytical testing to identify only those organic HAPs

that have the potential to be emitted either from process vents or from PVC stripped resin

processing units. The Agency proposes to require a sampling and analysis plan for process vents

and stripped PVC resin that ensures all potential organic HAP emissions are identified and

included in the site-specific TOHAP list.

With regards to a definition of TOHAP, and taking process knowledge and the results of

the 30-day stripped resin testing required by EPA into consideration, the Working Group submits

that a subset of the complete list of organic HAPs is appropriate to define in the rule for

PVCPUs. In response to the Agency’s section 114 request, the Working Group and other

industry members submitted a detailed description of the organic HAPs that would be expected

to be present in emissions from PVC facilities, based on the industry’s process knowledge.47

The August 2009 EPA section 114 request to all known PVC facilities required the

submission of PVC resin test plans for the 30-day data gathering program that included a list of

potential HAPs, starting with an EPA-provided HAP subset identified in Enclosure 1,

Attachment B to the August 2009 EPA section 114 request. PVC production facilities submitted

individual resin test plans identifying the SW-846 methods that would be used to detect and

quantify the final chosen list of HAPs in PVC resins and slurry stripper discharge samples. EPA

approved these PVC resin test plans in October/November 2009, for each PVC facility. In

47 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0054, Vinyl Institute Submission to USEPA (06-26-2008) (June

26, 2008).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

35

addition, the Working Group reviewed the concentration database submitted to EPA for any

HAPs that had been detected during the sampling campaign.

Based on a review of the preceding sources, the Working Group submits that the 19

HAPs listed at Attachment 10 should be subjected to a stripped resin limitation through the

TOHAP approach. Out of an abundance of caution, the Working Group would include the

additional 11 HAPs listed at Attachment 10, which appear not to have been detected, but were

analyzed and reported as non-detect by at least one PVCPU.

Table 4 sets out stripped resin limits the Working Group submits reflect emissions

actually achieved by the best performing sources. Spreadsheets containing the calculations used

to arrive at the limits in Tables 4 through 9 are being submited electronically and the names of

the individual files are submitted as Attachment 11.

Table 4: Stripped Resin Limits Actually Achieved

Existing Sources New Sources

VCM Daily

Limit (ppm)

TOHAP Limit*

(ppm)

VCM Daily

Limit (ppm)

TOHAP Limit*

(ppm)

Suspension 38 120 7.3 38

Dispersion 1300 1900 480 310

Vinyl Acetate

Copolymer** 790 2000 790 2000

Blending 140 3600 140 3600

*Limit would be a monthly average for the first 11 months following the implementation date

of the rule and a 12-month rolling average thereafter.

** The Working Group did not calculate MACT floors for copolymers other then vinyl acetate

copolymer.

D. Analyte Detection Limits

EPA has adopted a methodology to determine how much allowance to incorporate into

MACT emission limits to account for the impact of measurement variability on compliance

testing over time. EPA correctly asserts that emission limits should not be set at values that

approach the Method Detection Limit (“MDL”) because measurement uncertainty and variability

at levels below 3 times the MDL will cause sufficient imprecision that compliance cannot be

determined reliably. False negatives and positives (values below the emission limit when the

true value is above the emission limit and vice-versa for false positives) will occur at measured

values, which are less than 3 times the MDL, at an unacceptably high rate, and would not be

defensible.

EPA developed a reasonable procedure, using engineering judgment, to account for the

impact of the imprecision of data reported at or near the MDL, which imprecision can be in the

range of plus or minus 50%, versus an acceptable precision (similar to repeatability) of 10 to

15% normally found for measured values that are 3 times the detection limit or above. EPA
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

36

references an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) publication in the proposed

MACT rule that supports use of the factor of 3 times the MDL.48

Laboratories and stack testing consultants will normally report both the MDLs and the

reliable levels of quantification (“LOQ”) for compliance test results. Three times the MDL is

often used to define a reliable LOQ for reporting purposes, which may be designated as the

Reporting Level (“RL”) or Minimum Quantification Level (“MQL”) or other similar

nomenclature. The easy way to think of an LOQ, RL, or MQL or “3 times MDL” is that this

level is usually the lowest value to which a laboratory can calibrate its equipment or

instrumentation.

Questions can arise in selecting an appropriate, representative MDL, particularly when

data comes from different sources, and locations and laboratories contain variable MDLs for

seemingly similar sampling and analysis circumstances. Such situations typically arise due to

several factors, even when the same, or similar, sampling and analytical methods are used to

measure pollutant concentrations. First, it is understood that MDLs for any given parameter, for

instance a particular HAP, can vary due to the amount and type of other background constituents

that may be present. These varying levels and types of background constituents in a particular

sample matrix can cause interferences and noise in the subsequent measurement system. Such

matrix interferences can easily elevate MDLs such that less sensitive, site-specific MDLs must

be used in reporting results. Site-specific MDLs can vary widely depending on the level of

matrix interferences.

Another possible cause of elevation in MDLs is the final concentration or dilution factor

utilized in sample preparation steps by different laboratories. Widely varying

concentration/dilution factors can occur when comparing sampling and analytical methodologies

employed by otherwise similarly qualified consulting firms and laboratories. In many cases,

several pollutants are measured simultaneously using a single analytical method, but the

instrument measurement range differs from pollutant to pollutant. As a result, one or more

pollutants may be measured accurately, while other pollutants fall outside the reliable calibrated

range.

Laboratories also may dilute the sample (which raises the MDLs) to bring the highest

concentration pollutant within range, but other pollutant levels could fall into a much lower

range, even approaching the MDL, as a result. If the sample is run several times at different

dilutions, to optimize the measurement of each pollutant, the reported MDL values will vary

widely. Most analytical techniques, including SW-846 Methods that are widely used to measure

pollutant concentrations, can measure from 2 to more than 100 HAPs at the same time, but with

varying final calculated MDL values, as dilution and concentration steps are employed. Some

laboratories use a limited number of dilutions and concentration steps, while others use many

different steps to optimize results for each pollutant. Thus, widely varying reported MDLs can

readily occur.

EPA must select a representative MDL for each pollutant that will allow all or most sites

to obtain reliable compliance monitoring data where variable site-specific matrices and

48 76 Fed. Reg. 29,546.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

37

interferences cause widely variable site-specific MDL values. EPA does avoid using MDL

values for data and sites in MACT development where it is clear that site-specific matrix or

laboratory-specific factors have occurred. Thus, EPA’s procedure for determining a

representative MDL is reasonable and allows reliable future determinations of compliance.

E. Resin Stripping in the Reactor

Stripping in the reactor is a part of normal operations and is used for those resins that

cannot be stripped in columns. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA notes that “[t]hese

requirements from the Part 61 NESHAP constitute the MACT floor level of control from these

emission sources.”49 The Working Group supports this determination and would recommend

that the Agency use the specific language from the Part 61 NESHAP to clarify that the standard

for reactor opening loss (“ROL”) includes the: “sum of allowable reactor opening losses, and the

emission limit for all downstream equipment (e.g., the stripped resin limits).”

Proposed section 63.11955(b) sets out the requirements for opening a polymerization

reactor. The quantity of vinyl chloride is not to exceed 0.04 pounds per ton of PVC product.

The limitation should include an exception for stripping in the polymerizer similar to the one in

Part 61 NESHAP (section 61.64 paragraph (a)(2)(f)).

The Working Group also supports the Agency’s decision to use Part 61 NESHAP

requirements for vinyl chloride as the pollutant of concern for the polymerizers. Vinyl chloride

is the major HAP in the reactor at the beginning of the polymerization process, frequently

comprising 99% or more by weight of the total HAPs in the recipe. Note that in the case of at

least one co-polymer, the concentration of vinyl chloride is about 15% rather than 99%.Vinyl

chloride also has the highest partial pressure of all the HAPs known or suspected to be in the

polymerizer. The polymerizer is subject to high temperature stripping and the resulting vapor is

removed for recovery of the residual vinyl chloride (including any HAPs that are volatile enough

to be removed with the vapor).

F. Beyond-the-Floor MACT Analysis for Stripped Resins

EPA determined it was not appropriate to go beyond the floor to further reduce HAP

emissions by routing vents from process components downstream of the resin stripper (e.g., resin

dryers and centrifuges) to a thermal oxidizer, considering the high cost to install regenerative

thermal oxidizers (“RTOs”) and the resulting estimated emission reductions.50 The Working

Group agrees with EPA’s assessment as PVC resin dryer exhausts are high volume streams with

low concentrations of HAPs (15 ppmv in a flow of 11,000,000 dscf/hr), and thus, require large

RTO units and a large volume of natural gas fuel to achieve combustion temperatures. The

presence of PVC particulate matter and high moisture content further complicates the selection

of an emission control device that might be proposed for resin dryers, as explained by the Vinyl

49 76 Fed. Reg. 29,544.

50 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0098, at 4-6, Analysis of Beyond MACT Floor Controls for

the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, and Attachment A.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

38

Institute in a September 17, 2010 letter to EPA.51 In addition, improvements in PVC resin

stripping beyond that which can be achieved to meet new MACT floor HAP concentrations are

not feasible due to thermal degradation of PVC resins with elevated heat histories (combination

of higher temperatures and residence times).

Generally, the gas stream exhausted from a PVC dryer is moist, hot waste air with

practically no heat value (i.e., low HAP content) but a very high volumetric flow rate when

compared to typical waste gas streams exhausted to a control device. Conversely, waste gas

streams from PVC production equipment that vent to a control device have high heat values and

low volumetric flow rates. In addition, venting a low HAP/high flow rate PVC vent stream to a

control device, such as a thermal oxidizer (“TO”), increases the risk of a fire and/or explosion,

particularly given the TO’s operating environment, i.e., 1800oF with excess air. If PVC resin

were to carry over into a TO from a dryer stack, the resin could ignite within the firebox, causing

an unstable condition given that TOs are designed to combust waste gas not solids.

In addition, OSHA has determined that plastic dust, such as PVC dust, is combustible.

Once PVC dust is dispersed in air and the concentration of the dust is greater than the minimum

explosible concentration (MEC); if there is an ignition source present (e.g., spark, or hot

surface), then deflagration is present. If deflagration is present, then the possibility of a dust

explosion is present if that combustible mixture is dispersed in a confined enclosure, like

ductwork, a vessel or a bin. A small deflagration can disturb and suspend dust, which could then

serve as fuel for a secondary deflagration or explosion.

Controlling PVC dryer emissions by ducting them from the dryer stack to a TO could

create the possibility of a dust explosion if PVC powder or dust were to carry through the dryer

stack, into the ductwork to the TO and ignite once the dust reached the hot surface of the TO. If

there were any PVC dust built up in the ductwork or vessel prior to the TO, then a secondary

explosion could occur once the built-up dust was dispersed by the ignited PVC dust.

Lastly, the high velocity dryer vent stream can “snuff” out TO firebox flames, which

increases the potential for more excess emission events.

G. The Wide Divergence in Operating Parameters Needed for Different Resins

Makes the Use of CPMS on PVC Resin Strippers Infeasible

EPA proposes to require MACT enforceable CPMS for PVC resin strippers via sitespecific monitoring plans developed in accordance with proposed section 63.11935, specifically

subsections (c) and (d)(2).52 Section 63.11960 would require preparation of the CPMS for “each

stripped resin stream” and for each resin stripper, and would require collection of CPMS data

during the vinyl chloride and total HAP performance tests to establish operating limits.

Thereafter, compliance with those operating limits would constitute a demonstration of

continuous compliance.

51 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0059, Letter from The Vinyl Institute to USEPA RE: PVC

MACT Rulemaking-Stripping Technology is MACT for the PVC Industry 09-17-2009 (September 17, 2010).

52 76 Fed. Reg. 29,573 – 29,574 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11935).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

39

As described above, PVCPUs manufacture many different grades of PVC resin using the

same equipment, including resin strippers. Because each product recipe for each grade requires

different resin stripper parameter set point and ranges, the CPMS parameter ranges for any

particular stripper must be set to accommodate any of the dozens of resins that may be stripped.

We assume that EPA intends to require a single set of parameters for each stripper. Having

dozens of different ranges of acceptability for each resin stripper, and one for each grade or

recipe expected to be processed, would be overly complex and burdensome, and invariably very

difficult as a basis for demonstrating compliance.

In addition, stripping parameters for resin batches of any particular grade or recipe may

need to be adjusted on-the-fly, depending on variations in particle size distribution, molecular

weight, and porosity noted during polymerization in the reactor. As described elsewhere in these

comments, resin stripping requires a delicate balance between stripping optimization for vinyl

chloride (and other HAPs) and avoiding significant degradation of the product, often indicated

by color. The goal is to maximize stripping while maintaining product quality. Non-standard or

off-spec resins can often require or allow quite different stripping conditions, depending on

whether the material has been designated as secondary non-prime resin, destined for producing

PVC products that do not require tight PVC property specifications.

The Working Group strongly recommends that EPA delete all references to the

requirement for CPMS plans or systems for resin strippers in the final rule. Not only would such

requirements be burdensome, but they would also be ineffective in reducing HAP emissions, as

flexibility in optimizing resin strippers on a daily basis must be maintained for best stripping

performance for all grades and recipes and inevitable variations in material being fed to the

strippers.

A CPMS is also unnecessary because it would be redundant. EPA proposes that each

PVCPU sample every 8 hours and meet the new stringent vinyl chloride emission limits DAILY.

PVCPUs will need to be highly efficient at stripping all grades of resin (and unscheduled

variations in particular batches of PVC material from reactors) to continuously meet the

proposed daily limits. Therefore, the Working Group believes that all references to resin

strippers in the rule related to CPMS must be removed.

H. EPA Should Consider an Alternative Initial Compliance Period for PVCPUs to

Demonstrate TOHAP Compliance

In section 63.11960(c)(6), EPA proposes two different compliance periods for TOHAP;

the first 12 month period following demonstration of initial compliance, and all subsequent

months.53 Starting with month 12, compliance would be calculated as a 12-month rolling

average of the last 12 monthly values. Compliance with the TOHAP limit during the first 12

months would be required on a monthly basis, which would be a more stringent requirement than

the 12-month rolling average which begins on month 13. EPA requests comments on an

alternative compliance period, which would allow PVCPUs to use data collected in the year

preceding the initial compliance demonstration so that immediately following the initial

53 76 Fed. Reg. 29,585 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11960(c)(6)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

40

demonstration of compliance, the TOHAP limit would be a 12-month rolling average

compliance calculation.

Of course, in order to use the Agency’s proposed alternative, facilities would need to

ensure that any equipment or other PVCPU modifications necessary to reduce TOHAP is in

place and operating within 2 years of the final MACT rule effective date (rather than the 3 years

typically provided). Otherwise, facilities may not be able to ensure that the first month of rolling

average calculation is indeed in compliance with the MACT limit. The Working Group agrees

that this alternative would be workable for the best performing plants that do not need long lead

times to make changes to their PVCPUs to comply, and so endorses the proposed alternative.

The Working Group submits that there is another alternative, however, which should

allow all PVCPUs to avoid MACT limit exceedences during the first 12-month period after the

initial demonstration of compliance. EPA should calculate a different TOHAP compliance

concentration for the first 11 months that is based on a different variability factor allowance. A

monthly variability factor is more appropriate for compliance determination via the proposed

daily sample for each monthly compliance period. The Working Group submits that a monthly

TOHAP limit for the first 11 months would avoid forcing facilities into non-compliance simply

because the facilities must comply with a computed rolling 12-month average limitation that is

much more stringent than necessary.

The Working Group applied the same methodology used to derive the 12-month rolling

average limitation to compute a monthly compliance limit based on a single sample each month,

by substituting m = 1 in place of m = 12 into the calculation model. The Working Group

submits that the monthly limits set out in Table 5 below should apply during the first 11 months

following the compliance date of the rule:

Table 5: TOHAP Limits – Rolling Average vs. Monthly Limits

Existing Sources New Sources

All Units

ppmw

TOHAP

rolling

average

TOHAP

monthly limit

TOHAP

rolling

average

TOHAP

monthly limit

Suspension 120 490 38 140

Dispersion 1900 4200 310 420

Vinyl

Acetate

Copolymer 2000 2600 Same as existing

Blending 3600 3600 Same as existing

I. There is no Need for EPA to Pre-Approve Stripped Resin Test Methods

Section 63.11960(d) of the proposed rule sets forth procedures and testing methods that

are to be used to determine vinyl chloride and TOHAP concentrations in stripped resin, and that

are to be included in the site-specific test plan.54 The sections would refer to several of the Part

63, subpart A General Provisions, but their relevance is unclear. For example, section

54 76 Fed. Reg. 29,585 – 29,586 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11960(d)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

41

63.11960(d)(2) would require facilities to propose a method for measuring TOHAPs in a test

plan “prepared in § 63.7(c)(3) and 63.7(e)(2)(i),” but that section refers to the Agency’s approval

or disapproval of such plans. Similarly, section 63.7(e)(2)(i) only addresses EPA’s approval of

minor changes to a test method but does not address the elements of a test plan.

The Working Group submits that site-specific plans for testing stripped resin are not

complex, and prior approval by EPA is unnecessary and counter-productive. Elimination of the

test plan approval process would expedite implementation of the PVC MACT rule. The better

approach would be for these plans to be prepared by the PVCPUs using methods outlined in

Attachment 10, and then would be made available for inspection by EPA and state agencies

upon request. EPA always has the ability to review test plans after implementation, and can do

so easily given the small-size of the PVC and Copolymers Production source category.

Proposed section 63.11960(d)(2) contains another inconsistent cross-reference to the Part

63 General Provisions. Specifically, section 63.11960(d)(2) would require facilities to “submit

the test plan for approval as specified in § 63.8(d) and (e).” Sections 63.8(d) and (e), however,

apply to continuous monitoring systems (“CMS”) and appear to be inapplicable to the sitespecific stripped resin test plans. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, section

63.11960(d)(2) should be removed.

J. The Agency Needs to Allow use of Test Methods That Most Effectively Measure

Certain HAPs

Sections 63.11960(d)(2) and (d)(3) would prescribe the EPA analytical methods to be

used in analyzing vinyl chloride and TOHAP in stripped resin. Currently, EPA only lists

Method 8260B and Method 107, but the Agency needs to allow the use of other SW-846

methods to ensure that all potential PVC process HAPs are analyzed using the most appropriate

and accurate methods.

As proposed section 63.11985(a)(7)(iii) indicates,55 facilities would be required to test for

the HAPs listed at Table 9, subpart G of the proposed rule when testing stripped resin and

wastewater for TOHAPs. The Working Group agrees with this approach, but it appears that

EPA intends that the list of PVC process-related HAPs would be limited to those at Table 9.

One or more PVC process-related HAPs appears to be missing, however, and the Working

Group recommends that EPA add them to the PVC process HAP list. For instance,

formaldehyde was detected and reported by several PVCPUs during the EPA section 114 30-day

sampling but is not listed at Table 9 of subpart G.

Attachment 10 includes a more detailed explanation of the Working Group’s

recommended PVC process HAP list for both stripped resin and wastewater. Briefly, the

Working Group’s recommended list of HAPs is a subset of Table 9 at subpart G, but with the

addition of other relevant HAPs like formaldehyde. During the section 114 30-day stripped resin

testing conducted for this rule, individual facilities analyzed similar, but somewhat

55 76 Fed. Reg. 29,590 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11985(a)(7)(iii)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

42

heterogeneous lists of potential HAPs, based on industry and site-specific knowledge.56 As this

was the first time that most in the industry were analyzing for all potential PVC process HAPs,

some facilities took a more conservative approach than others, and included several non-specific,

non-HAP parameters in their site-specific HAP listings. In order to ensure that all potential

HAPs were identified, the PVCPU facilities used a very similar set of SW-846 methods, as

several methods were required to make sure that all potential HAPs were included for reporting

purposes, as follows:

1) Method 8260B for volatile organic compounds

2) Method 8270C for semi-volatile compounds

3) Method 8315A for aldehydes, specifically acetaldehyde and formaldehyde

4) Method 8015C for alcohols, specifically methanol

5) EPA Method 107 for VCM

Therefore, all five (5) of these methods should be listed in subparagraph (d)(2).

Separately, section 11960(d)(2)(i) would require facilities to use Method 107 “for sample

collection, preservation, storage, and transport” of TOHAP samples. In effect, EPA is proposing

to incorporate Method 107’s requirement that samples must be analyzed within 24 hours of

collection and impose this requirement on TOHAPs samples. The Working Group objects to the

Agency’s proposal and submits that the sample time limitation proposed in section

11960(d)(2)(i) is unnecessary, overly burdensome, and would make it impossible for a PVCPU

to use an outside contract laboratory due to the inherent delay associated with sample packaging,

transportation and placement in queue at the receiving laboratory.

To the best knowledge of the Working Group, only Method 107 and perhaps Method

8260B have ever been developed for on-site monitoring at a PVCPU. Section 4.1of SW-846,

Organic Analytes, indicates that unpreserved Volatile Organic Analysis (“VOA”) samples may

be held for up to 7 days before analysis, although it is recommended that VOA samples be run as

soon as possible after receipt by the laboratory. Holding time studies indicate that key HAPs in

stripped resin and PVC process wastewater, VCM and methanol, can be held for up to seven

days without significant loss.57

We note that section 63.11960(d)(4) separately would require PVCPUs to minimize the

loss of HAPs and maintain sample integrity. This requirement can be met either by meeting the

holding times established in the specific methods to be used, by the guidance in SW-846, or by

HAP specific holding time studies that demonstrate HAP concentration stability.

56 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0055.1, Letter from Mary Bachynsky, Vinyl Institute, Inc.

(VI) to Greg Nizich, USEPA Re: PVC MACT – Estimated HAPs; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-

0069, Email from Mary P. Bachynsky, Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA to Greg Nizich, Re: VI PVC MACT

Submittal: Estimated HAPs (8-11-2008).

57 See the holding time study data submitted by Working Group member OxyVinyls in separate comments on the

PVC MACT rulemaking.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

43

As Methods 8260, 8270, 8315, and 8015 require purchase of gas chromatographs, mass

spectrometer detectors, and a liquid chromatograph (for Method 8315), as well as substantial

associated extraction equipment, the capital cost per PVCPU would be hundreds of thousands of

dollars, and would likely include the need for construction of additional laboratory space. The

Working Group strongly recommends the removal of subparagraph (d)(2)(i) from the PVC

MACT rule. As the Agency should well appreciate from the detail and scope of these comments,

PVC facilities are staffed with personnel that are experts in sampling matters, and are well able

to determine how best to minimize the loss of HAPs and maintain sample integrity, as well as

determine what appropriate sample preservation and holding times are required for VCM and

TOHAP in stripped resin.

In this regard, we note that section 63.11960(d)(3) appropriately identifies Method 107

for analysis of VCM in stripped resin. The rule language is confusing, however, as it calls for

using only Section 8.0 of Method 107, rather than the complete method. This subparagraph

needs to be revised to include the complete Method 107, and should acknowledge that over the

past 30 years, PVCPUs may have obtained EPA permission to make minor modifications to the

method to address practical impediments to accurate measurement that may have arisen over

time. These EPA-approved modifications must be preserved in the final rule. The Working

Group suggests the following language for this subparagraph:

(3) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

hereby incorporated into Part 63 as an Appendix. Existing EPA approved

modifications to Method 107, obtained for use at PVCPUs, continue to be

authorized for analysis of vinyl chloride in stripped resin and wastewater.

Because EPA plans to fully supersede Part 61 with the new MACT for PVC and Copolymers,

that Method 107 (and other relevant parts of Part 61) must be moved into Part 63.

IV. Emissions Limitations for Process Vents Must be Revised

EPA proposes to require that vent streams be routed through a closed vent system to a

control device; these include all vent streams from (1) polymerization reactors; (2) resin

strippers; (3) other process components prior to the resin stripper; (4) VCM recovery systems;

(5) the wastewater collection and treatment system; (6) slip gauges; (7) unloading and loading

lines; and (8) samples.58 EPA proposes limits on the emissions from the outlet of the control

device that would apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown of operations.59 The

Working group agrees with EPA that both thermal oxidizers with acid gas scrubbers and

chemical absorbers are effective technologies for controlling organic HAPs, including VCM.

The Agency’s MACT floor analysis is based on emissions data collected from emissions

tests conducted at the outlet of the absorber, or the thermal oxidizer/scrubber control system. For

each pollutant, the average of the three test runs was calculated for each facility.60 EPA proposes

58 76 Fed. Reg. 29,569 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11925).

59 76 Fed. Reg. 29,564 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11890).

60 76 Fed. Reg. 29,543. See also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, MACT Floor Analysis for

the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category (April 11, 2011).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

44

to limit emissions of vinyl chloride, TOHAP (compliance measured by total hydrocarbon),

hydrogen chloride, and chlorinated dibenzodioxins (“dioxins” and chlorinated dibenzofurans

(“furans”)). EPA determined, and the Working Group agrees, that setting performance based

limits is appropriate because:

The emission limits in the proposed rule provides [sic] flexibility for the regulated

community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or

technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a

prescribed control method that may not be appropriate in each case.61

However, we also believe that alternate percent reduction or lb/hr limits, based on

performance equivalent to the top five performers, would give existing sources the flexibility to

achieve compliance with absorbers, rather than thermal oxidizers, while preventing emissions of

HCl and other combustion-related pollutants and minimizing vinyl chloride emissions.

The Agency expects that some PVCPUs will add a refrigerated condenser (or an

additional refrigerated condenser), activated carbon injection, and fabric filters — in addition to

the existing thermal oxidizers/scrubbers or absorbers — to meet the proposed limits. According

to EPA, these technologies, in combination with the existing controls, are generally the most

effective controls available for reducing HAP concentration limits.62 Consequently, EPA did not

identify any beyond-the-floor technologies for process vents, apparently because it assumed that

these additional technologies are both available and suitable for enabling the PVC industry to

meet the proposed new emissions limits.63

In the proposed rule, EPA considers unloading operations at PVCPUs to be part of

process vents or storage, because emissions from unloading operations occur when charging

storage vessels or reactor vessels, and any emissions are released from reactor vents or from the

storage vessels. The emissions from these activities are subject to the process vent emission

limits or storage vessel work practices. The Agency requests comments on these proposed

requirements.

A. EPA Should Postpone Promulgation of the PVC MACT and Consolidate the Rule

With the Pending EDC/VCM MACT

Several PVC production facilities are co-located with, or located near, other chemical

manufacturing processes in other source categories, i.e., ethylene dichloride and/or vinyl chloride

(“EDC/VCM”) manufacturing, and share process vent and other control devices with these

facilities.64 On March 16, 2011, the Agency issued a section 114 request for information to

61 76 Fed. Reg. 29,540.

62 Although the Agency was not clear, we interpret this reference to additional pollution prevention and control

technology as the Agency’s description of how sources that are not among the top five would meet the proposed

MACT floor limits. If all facilities would need to install new emission control equipment, that would be a beyondthe-floor obligation and require a full beyond-the-floor analysis in support of such a proposal. The Agency has not

presented a beyond-the-floor analysis as part of its proposal.

63 76 Fed. Reg. 29,548. See also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0098, at 1-2.

64 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 5.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

45

EDC/VCM manufacturers, many of which also are subject to the PVC MACT, requesting survey

and test data to support the development of an EDC/VCM MACT rule. We understand that the

Agency intends to finalize the EDC/VCM rulemaking only a few months after finalizing the

PVC MACT rule.

EPA has recognized that thirty-three percent (33%) of PVCPUs use control devices at

EDC/VCM facilities. These control devices, as well as the other process equipment at the PVC

and EDC/VCM facilities, are currently regulated under the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAPs.

All industry testing and data for the EDC/VCM rule has been or will be submitted to EPA.

Particularly with regard to process vents at co-located facilities, EPA should postpone

development of the PVC MACT in order to finalize a consolidated PVC/EDC/VCM rule, or at a

minimum, two rules that are consistent and address both PVC and copolymer facilities as well as

EDC/VCM manufacturing facilities at the same time. This is not a far fetched suggestion, as the

Agency recently determined that delay and consolidation of two refinery MACTs was warranted

because of the “significant benefits in combining these efforts.”65

One significant benefit to a consolidated approach in the PVC/EDC/VCM situation

would be the additional clarity that presumably would be provided concerning exactly what

control requirements apply to each facility, a current problem with the proposed PVC MACT,

explained in greater detail elsewhere in these comments.66

B. The MACT Floor for Process Vents Should be Recalculated Using Data From

Facilities that Operated at Representative Maximum Operating Conditions for

PVC Production

Turning to the substance of EPA’s proposal, the Working Group agrees that chemical

absorbers and thermal oxidizers with scrubbers are effective technologies for controlling organic

HAPs, including VCM, as well as HCl.

Recognizing the routine industry configuration of shared control devices at EDC/VCM

facilities discussed in subsection A above, EPA required, for the purpose of conducting stack

tests for the PVC section 114 information request, that PVC-only process vent gas be isolated

from non-PVC vent gases generated by co-located non-PVC chemical production facilities.

Despite industry objections to separating the vent streams during testing, EPA was intent on

ensuring that it evaluated data exclusively from PVC production. The Agency also asked

facilities to test their thermal oxidizers while operating at “maximum representative operating

conditions” for normal PVC production. According to EPA:

Process vent emissions data were collected from 7 facilities that identified their

tested emissions as dedicated to the PVC production unit(s). For this analysis,

only those data that were collected from PVC production source category process

65 See 76 Fed. Reg. 42,052, 42,054 (July 18, 2011).

66 In the alternative, EPA could defer compliance until a consolidated EDC/VCM/PVC rule is promulgated, which

should be well within the three-year effective date compliance deadline in the proposed PVC MACT. Another

option would be for the agency to issue a new PVC MACT proposal for to ensure consistency with provisions in a

new EDC/VCM rule.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

46

vents were used to calculate the MACT floor emission limits because only those

data are reflective of emissions from PVC production units.67

If the Agency persists in finalizing the proposed rule to cover PVC sources exclusively,

the Working Group generally supports the Agency’s approach of calculating floors exclusively

with PVC-only vent streams. However, the Working Group asks that EPA acknowledge critical

issues with the data set and recalculate the MACT floor for PVC process vent controls.

First, it is important to note that the required testing at PVC production units was

conducted during a period of below normal operations in late 2009, and early 2010. As the

attached chart depicts, this was a period when the industry was operating between 25% and 34%

below its maximum throughput during the prior 3 years. In determining MACT floor limits,

EPA must account for the testing variance that occurred by sampling and testing during a period

of lower throughput for the industry. Much of the data presented with the CAA 114 Survey was

obtained in 2008. The proposed rule does not appear to take into consideration the need to adjust

the limits to account for the fact that the test period was not representative of normal production

rates and the Working Group asks that EPA include an adjustment factor in the final rule.

Monthly PVC Resin Production, Thousand lbs.

* Indicated MACT Test Month

Data Source: ACC Resin Review

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Poundsin Thousands

2007

2008

2009

2010

* *

*

*

Figure 10: Monthly PVC Resin Production, Thousand lbs

In a letter dated July 12, 2011, which is included as Attachment 12, the Working Group

notified EPA that some of the test data from the facilities used to calculate the floor did not

reflect maximum representative operating conditions for the thermal oxidizers/scrubbers. In at

least two instances, facilities provided the Agency with engineering estimates, not actual test

data. One facility had several malfunctions occur during the test period, yielding nonrepresentative emissions. Two facilities used different types of control devices (recovery

absorbers) that were not categorized with thermal oxidizers. These facilities should not be

included in the MACT floor calculation.

67 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 5.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

47

Finally, three facilities used control devices oxidizing PVC-only process vent streams

with significantly reduced flow and firing large amounts of natural gas. These facilities did not

produce a representative emission profile.

The issue is that these facilities normally process their PVC vent streams in large thermal

oxidizers that normally process EDC/VCM/chlorinated organic vent streams. In these facilities,

the PVC vent stream makes up only a small fraction of the total flow to the control devices.

Thermal oxidizers designed to process a PVC-only vent gas stream have a design heat input

capacity rating ranging from less than 1 to 12 MMBTU/hr. In contrast, thermal oxidizers at colocated facilities have a design heat capacity rating ranging from 20 to 87 MMBTU/hr.68

During a test on a thermal oxidizer designed for a PVC/EDC/VCM chlorinated organics

vent stream, if a vent gas stream is withheld and the thermal oxidizer is operated to destroy a

smaller volume vent gas stream, substantial amounts of fuel gas are needed to maintain the

firebox temperatures and other dependent operating parameters in order to completely destroy

the smaller volume vent gas stream. The resultant emissions from this test scenario create a

more dilute and different stream of combustion byproducts and create an artificial emission

profile, including abnormally low levels of the regulated HAP emissions, which is not

representative of normal operation. Therefore, EPA should recalculate the MACT floor without

using the tests from these three facilities. The Working Group supports the additional comments

of the Occidental Chemical Corporation/Oxy Vinyls, LP, and Formosa Plastics Corporation

concerning the Agency’s proposed regulation of process vents.

In addition, the Working Group also notes that Westlake’s Calvert City, Kentucky facility

test was run under just one normal operating scenario, but unfortunately it was not a maximum

representative operating scenario. The Working Group does not suggest that it should not be

included, only that it is not in the same category as the other thermal oxidizers, given its size.

Under these conditions, this facility should not be used to set any new plant limits.

The recalculated values selected from the six PVC-only tests, as identified in our July 12,

2011 correspondence that had representative data as indicated above are presented below:

Table 6: Recalculated Process Vent MACT Floors for Existing Sources

Regulated HAP 99% UPL MACT Floor

Emission Limit

Vinyl Chloride 16.98 10*

Hydrogen chloride (ppm) 140.66 141

Total organic HAP (ppm) 47.12 48

THC 12.64 13

CDD/CDF (TEQ) (ng/dscm) 0.019 0.021**

* UPL value was lowered to existing NESHAP limit

**Any number below 0.1 should be treated as being uncertain because the limits of quantitation

below that level are uncertain. Accordingly, work practice standards should be set at this level.

68 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0066.5, USEPA Section 114 Information Collection Request

for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Industry (8-21-2009) - Survey Form Part 1 (Revised 11-10-2009), at 12.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

48

C. Some Recovery Devices are not Control Devices; EPA Should Promote the Use of

Recovery Devices, and Exclude Recovery Devices From the Definition of

Destructive Control Devices, Whenever Possible

The Agency proposes that a recovery device be defined as:

Recovery Device means an individual process component capable of and normally used

for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value),

use, and reuse or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of process components

that may be recovery devices include absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, oil water

separators, or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such as decanters,

strippers (e.g., wastewater steam and vacuum strippers), or thin-film evaporation units.

For purposes of this subpart, recovery devices are control devices.69

The Agency provides no rationale for its proposal to classify all “recovery devices” as “control

devices.”

The Agency also proposes that a control device be defined as:

Control device means, with the exceptions noted in this definition, a combustion

device, recovery device, recapture device, or any combination of these devices

used to comply with this subpart. Process condensers are not control devices.70

The Agency provides no explanation as to why “process condensers” are the sole type of

recovery device that would be excluded from being control devices.

EPA has not explained the approach and criteria it used to group certain equipment and

processes into regulatory bins. The Working Group believes that the definitions of recovery

device and control device should be modified to clarify that not all recovery devices are control

devices. Specifically, upstream in-process recovery devices that are not the last operation prior

to venting to the atmosphere should not be defined or regulated as control devices. The Working

Group also recommends that any recovery devices (i.e., process absorbers, adsorbers,

condensers, and strippers) not having emissions to the atmosphere not be regulated by the

process vent section of the proposed rule. The problem with EPA’s proposed definitions is that

all of the equipment in a facility’s VCM recovery system could be classified as a control device.

In addition, the Agency should clarify that refrigerated condensers, as suggested by EPA,71 or

carbon adsorbers, when used in a recovery system to recover and reduce the quantity of vinyl

chloride before the thermal oxidizer are process condensers or process adsorbers that are not

control devices.

Recovery devices should be regulated as “recovery” control devices only when they are

the last operation prior to discharging to the atmosphere. Therefore, the PVC resin strippers are

“recovery” control devices because they control TOHAP emissions from the PVC dryers.

Strippers used to remove organics from wastewater may be either control (or treatment) devices

69 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

70 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

71 76 Fed. Reg. 29,558.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

49

or “recovery” control devices. Both types of control devices prevent emissions to the

atmosphere from wastewater, but those that recover the stripped material and return it to the

process for use should be regulated less stringently with minimal or no CPMS requirements,

compared to those that send the organics to a control device for destruction before release of

minute residuals into the atmosphere. Furthermore, if continuous monitoring (e.g., either CEMS

or numerous manual samples) is used to monitor recovery devices, no CPMS requirements are

warranted and the final rule should be revised accordingly. Both control devices and recovery

control devices would, of course, have numerical emission limitations.

In summary, the definition of recovery device should be amended to include: “For

purposes of this subpart, recovery devices may or may not be control devices.” In addition, the

definition of control device should be amended to read as follows:

Control device means, with the exceptions noted in this definition, a combustion

device, some recovery devices, some recapture devices, or any combination of

these devices used primarily to comply with this subpart. Process condensers are

not control devices.

The Working Group submits that EPA should give preference when possible to

controlling HAP emissions through the use of recovery devices rather than destructive

technologies. As a rule, the primary purpose of a recovery device is to reduce waste and

expenditures by returning material inputs to the manufacturing process. As such, recovery

devices provide additional environmental benefit, when compared to destruction-based

technologies, because they typically have minimal HAP and criteria pollutant emissions, and

generate useful materials.

The use of recovery control devices to control emissions is a beneficial practice that EPA

should not discourage by imposing CPMS requirements. For example, a process absorber that

produces HCl for use, as distinguished from final control device scrubbers, should not be subject

to low pH limits, unless it is the final emission control device before discharging to the

atmosphere. This is not a new concept, and the Agency previously recognized the benefits of

regulating recovery devices differently from control devices in several existing MACT standards,

including in the Subpart F, Hazardous Organic NESHAP (“HON”) and the Subpart FFFF,

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (“MON”). As EPA noted in one of the MON preambles:

In the proposal we recognized that the 98% control requirement for all process

vents with the affected processes would force incineration, and this might not be

appropriate for all process vent streams. Therefore, we also allowed 95%

reduction of process vents if “recovery” control technology was employed to

achieve required reductions.72

Given increasing concerns about energy, climate change, and dioxin/furans, the Agency

should provide a set of alternative compliance options for both control and recovery control

equipment that includes concentration, mass, or percentage (%) removal limits, all based on the

72 68 Fed. Reg. 63,858 (November 10, 2003); see also National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subparts F, G, and H.

59 Fed. Reg. 19,402 (April 22, 1994)
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

50

five best performing facilities. Emission limits set exclusively on a concentration basis are an

unfair measure of performance for some low flow recovery or control devices. Both types of

devices can be regulated with a flexible approach to allow use of recovery, control, or a

combination of technologies.

This approach has been allowed in the above referenced MON rule. For example, Table

1 of the MON allows facilities to choose to demonstrate compliance using % removal, kg/hr, or

ppmv for scrubbers used to reduce hydrogen halides and halogen HAP after combustion devices.

The MON also allows compliance demonstrations for the TOHAP to be made on a % removal or

ppmv basis.

Finally, this approach is consistent with section 4 of Executive Order 13546, Flexible

Approaches, which states:

Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the

extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider regulatory

approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for

the public. These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, and

disclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form

that is clear and intelligible.”

This allowance for flexibility may be even more critical for new plant designs.

Using data from the five best performing PVC-only facilities with representative

emission data yields identified above, the following equivalent performance based limits are

shown in Table 7 below:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

51

Table 7: Performance Results for Five Best Performing PVC-only Facilities with Representative Emission Data

Vinyl Chloride Total Organic HAP THC Hydrogen Chloride CDD/CDF (TEQ)

Process Vents

ppm

%

removal lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr (ng/dscm) %removal ng/hr

Top 5 best of

PVC-only Plants 10** 99.9+ 0.054 48 98.9 0.3 13 No Data No Data 150 No Data 0.37 0.021* No Data 5.81x10-10

*Any number below 0.1 should be treated as being uncertain because the limits of quantitation below that level are uncertain. Accordingly, work practice standards should be set at this level.

** UPL value was lowered to existing NESHAP limit

% Removal Notes:

1.% Removal based on Average of Top 5's % Removal

2.Shintech Addis Inlet values are smaller than Outlet values, Shintech Addis was excluded for % Removal Analysis
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

52

D. Case in Point—EPA Should Develop Separate Limits for Absorber Stripper

Recovery Devices

The Agency’s proposed limits for process vents are based on the use of thermal oxidizers

as the control device for process vents.73 Two PVC facilities, however, use vent gas absorption

(“VGA”) as VCM recovery systems for these streams. VGA technology has been in place for

many years in these PVC plants, as well as in other chemical operations. These units are

preferable in several ways because they do not rely on combustion to control emissions. The

Working Group submits that the Agency should recognize that VGAs are a “recovery” control

technology because the recovered vinyl chloride is then used in the production process. A

separate subcategory should be provided in the final rule for recovery control devices, with

equivalent MACT floor performance limits for these units that function as control devices.

Compared to absorber technology, combustion requires more energy and water, does not

recover a useful material, and generates dioxin/furan and greater amounts of HCl. Recovering

VCM in an absorber should be an acceptable alternative to combustion devices. Absorbers can

be preferable to thermal oxidizers in certain locations like Pedricktown, New Jersey, where

available water supply is limited for use in scrubbers or any other equipment. The VGA was

installed to meet the requirements of the Part 61 Vinyl Chloride NESHAP. The VCM recovery

system consists of a vacuum system to remove the residual VCM from process vents, empty

VCM tank cars, rail car unloading lines, reactor opening, equipment opening, resin strippers,

water stripping, etc. The vacuum equipment includes vacuum pumps, compressors, condensers,

interconnected piping, and the VGA.

The VGA system effectively recovers approximately 850,000 pounds annually, or

99.99% of the VCM entering the absorber. The VGA uses iso-octane to absorb the residual

VCM carried by process vent air streams, strips the VCM from the iso-octane, and then

condenses recycled VCM back into the production process. The only emission from VGA is a

small amount of iso-octane, containing trace amounts of VCM. The system emits an average of

0.2 lb/hr of iso-octane based upon the 2008 stack test data, and ongoing iso-octane makeup.

By using a VGA instead of a thermal oxidizer, the two U.S. facilities that are designed

for these units on average avoid releasing the products of combustion of vinyl chloride, which

are estimated at: 478 tons per year of CO2; 40 tons per year of HCl assuming 80% removal via a

thermal oxidizer scrubber plus 0.11 tons per year of TSP/PM10; 0.044 tons per year of carbon

monoxide; 0.088 tons per year of volatile organic compounds; and 1.41 tons per year of nitrogen

oxides from the fuel used to oxidize the inert vent gas stream. The VGA also has no

dioxin/furan emissions.

A comparison of available performance options for the two locations with recovery

devices yields the following performance based limits:

73 See 76 Fed. Reg. 29,556.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

53

Table 8: Comparison of Available Performance Options with Two Locations with Recovery Devices

Vinyl Chloride Total Organic HAP THC Hydrogen Chloride CDD/CDF (TEQ)

Process Vents

ppm

%

remov

al

lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr ppm

%

removal lb/hr (ng/dscm) % removal ng/hr

Top 5 best of

PVC-only

Plants

10** 99.9+ 0.054 48 98.9 0.3 13 No Data No

data 150 No data 0.37 0.021* No Data 5.81x10-10

Pedricktown 3 99.9+ 4.80x10-6 9724 96.7 0.08 32,4

25 No Data Nodata 1.32 No data 1.40x10-6 Notapplicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Henry 2 99.9+ 3.32x10-5 25173 98.4 0.22 13,5

35 No Data Nodata 0.53 No data 2.90x10-6 Notapplicable

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

*Any number below 0.1 should be treated as being uncertain because the limits of quantitation below that level are uncertain. Accordingly, work practice standards should be set at this level.

** UPL value was lowered to existing NESHAP limit

% Removal Notes:

1.% Removal based on Average of Top 5's % Removal

2.Shintech Addis Inlet values are smaller than Outlet values, Shintech Addis was excluded for % Removal Analysis
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

54

Based on the highlighted sections of the above table, these recovery absorbers exhibit

equivalent performance to the thermal oxidizers. The performance standard for VCM is met

with all three of criteria. The TOH/THC performance standard is met with an equivalent lb/hr

criterion, and the HCL performance standard is met with the concentration and lb/hr criteria.

The dioxin/furan limit is not applicable to this type of process.

Use of chemical absorbers requires designs that minimize air volume that must be

considered in an overall plant design. Therefore, absorbers would not be appropriate for all

existing plants, but should be an available alternative especially for maintaining flexibility to

optimize future plant designs.

E. EPA Should Impose Work Practice Standards Rather Than Emission Limits to

Control Dioxin Emissions

The Working Group appreciates the Agency’s recognition that dioxin/furan emissions

from PVCPU thermal oxidizers are low compared to more significant sources like liquid and

solid waste incinerators. The industry has consistently maintained that dioxin/furan emissions

from PVCPUs are negligible, as demonstrated by the VI study sponsored in the mid 1990s.74

Indeed, the average dioxin/furan emissions of the five best performing PVCPUs selected by EPA

are 0.009 ng/dscm,75 which is lower than the average of all natural gas fired boilers at 0.032

ng/dscm, based on data compiled as part of the recent Boiler and Process Heater MACT

rulemaking. But you cannot get blood from a stone, and EPA’s proposed dioxin limits are

unwarranted given the industry’s existing level of performance.

1. EPA Should Not Set Numeric Dioxin/Furan Standards for PVCPU

Process Vents

EPA has proposed to establish a dioxin/furan standard for PVCPU process vents of

0.023 ng/dscm at 3% O2 (TEQ basis).76

As illustrated below, the level of dioxins/furans emissions contained in EPA’s

spreadsheets for PVCPU process vent emissions are in the same range as the dioxins/furans

emission rates reported from Gas 1 Boilers in EPA’s Boiler MACT database, where EPA

determined that it was not feasible to set numeric dioxins/furans emissions limits.

74 “The Vinyl Institute Dioxin Characterization Program Final Report,” Vinyl Institute (July 1, 2002).

75 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 14, Table 4-8 (April 11, 2011)

76 76 Fed. Reg. 29,599-29,600 (to be codified at Table 1 to 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart HHHHHHH)
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

55

Figure 11: PVC Vents vs. BMACT Gas 1 Units Dioxin/Furan Data

Given that PVC-only plants have similar dioxin and furan emissions to gas-fired boilers,

PVC-only plants similarly should not be subject to numerical limits for dioxin and furan

emissions. EPA previously identified work practices in the final Boiler and Process Heater

MACT that would assist in managing dioxin and furan emissions from these combustion devices.

This work practice standard requires an annual tune-up to ensure complete combustion and

minimize dioxin and furan formation in lieu of emission limits, and includes:

(1) Inspection of the burner, and clean or replace any components of the burner as

necessary;

(2) Inspect the flame pattern and make any adjustments to the burner necessary to

optimize the flame pattern consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications;

(3) Inspect the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio, and ensure that it is correctly

calibrated and functioning properly;

(4) Optimize total emissions of CO consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications;

(5) Measure the concentration in the effluent stream of CO in parts per million by volume

dry (ppmvd), before and after the adjustments are made;

(6) Submit to the delegated authority or EPA an annual report containing the

concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in ppmvd, and oxygen in percent dry

basis, measured before and after the adjustments of the boiler, a description of any

corrective actions taken as a part of the combustion adjustment, and the type and

amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment.

In addition, measurement of oxygen can be used to ensure that complete combustion is taking

place.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

56

2. EPA Should Set Work Practice Requirements or Adjust the Dioxin/Furan

Standard to Account For Measurement Uncertainty

Section 112(h) of the Act provides that “if it is not feasible in the judgment of the

Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . the Administrator may, in lieu

thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.”77 The Agency

must first make a determination that “the application of measurement methodology to a

particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations,” not

that it lacks emissions data to set a limit.78 The Working Group submits that PVC facilities face

precisely the type of technological constraints in measuring for dioxins/furans that warrant, if not

mandate, the use of work practice standards.

The dioxin/furan emission level of 0.023 ng/dscm proposed for PVC facilities is below

levels that can be accurately measured. However, if EPA persists with a limit, it should be set at

a level no less than 0.1 ng/dscm. Continuous analyzers have not been demonstrated to be

capable of accurately measuring dioxin/furan emissions at these low levels. Therefore,

continuous analyzers should not be specified for new or existing plants.

The majority of the data collected on dioxin/furan emissions from process vents are at

levels below the capability of the analytical methods to detect emissions of these compounds.

For the dedicated, PVC-only oxidizers, 47% of the data for the individual congeners are below

detection limits, and additional data are marked as being below the laboratory’s quantitation

limit.79 Particularly in the context of regulatory compliance, it is not appropriate to use

detection-level-limited data for purposes of establishing MACT floors as if that data were

equivalent to values above the level of detection. The uncertainty associated with measurements

near or below the method detection limits is too high; in other words, data at or below the test

method’s level of detection are not reliable or adequate to support either a MACT floor or to

define compliance testing.80 The test methods were developed more than 30 years ago to

measure dioxins/furans in waste incinerator exhaust streams with at concentrations that were

orders of magnitude higher than those found in exhaust from PVCPU oxidizers.

All source emission measurements have random (precision) errors associated with sample

collection, sample and equipment handling, sample preparation, and sample analysis. These

errors define method detection and quantitation limits and uncertainty in a non-arbitrary,

scientific manner.81 When emission levels are much higher than the magnitude of these errors,

77 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(1). See also Sierra Club v EPA, 479 F.3d at 883.

78 Sierra Club, 479 F.3d at 883.

79 As EPA did not include the actual test reports and analytical data in the docket, we were unable to independently

evaluate the dioxin/furan test data for each plant, but relied on the data contained in EPA’s summary spreadsheets.

80 Here, we use the term “uncertainty” to refer to the statistical expression of measurement error, as defined in

ASME Performance Test Code 19.1, rather than common definition of an unknown or unknowable factor.

81 The magnitude of dioxins/furans measurement errors typically varies with every measurement and is affected by

the characteristics of the sample, skills of the sampler and analyst, specific equipment used, techniques and

procedures adopted by individual laboratories and other factors, even when following the same published test

method, in this case, EPA Method 23. Although Method 23 procedures minimize measurement errors at the stack

emission levels and applications for which it was intended, measurement errors are not zero and become significant

at the extremely low levels in PVCPU oxidizer exhaust.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

57

there is a high degree of confidence in the measured value obtained from a single or limited

number of test runs. As the measured value decreases, however, the contribution of these errors

to the measured value increases, thus decreasing the confidence level in the accuracy of the

measured value from a single or a few runs until the point where the measured value cannot be

distinguished from the random error (“noise” level). This is the case with the process vent data

for dioxins/furans. The measurements cannot be distinguished from zero with a reasonable

degree of confidence.

In setting the proposed standards, EPA has acknowledged that the emission limit should

not be set below the capability of the applicable test method.82 But, EPA did not use the method

detection limit, which is based on the capabilities of multiple commercial laboratories to analyze

a sample and identify the presence of a chemical above the “noise” level. Rather, EPA invented

a new term, “representative method detection limit” (“RDL”), to define a measurement method

detection limit which is based on the laboratory detection limits reported for the tests with the

lowest emissions.83 The error in the RDL approach that EPA invented resulted in estimating

dioxin/furan detection limits that are significantly lower than those regularly achieved by

commercial laboratories.

The detection limit of an analytical method is the lowest concentration that can be

distinguished from replicate blanks.84 The quantitation limit of a method is the smallest

concentration of the substance which can be measured with an acceptable level of uncertainty.85

Detection limits and quantitation limits are defined in a scientific, non-arbitrary manner in

various widely-published peer-reviewed consensus guidelines86 and EPA documents.

Quantitation limits of test methods have great significance when measuring very low

concentrations of pollutants. In practice, reported values below the method’s quantitation limit

should not be treated as real values. While speculation may serve a role in scientific research

and exploration, such speculation is not a valid basis for imposing regulatory compliance

requirements with significant legal penalties for noncompliance.

The Working Group agrees with the majority of a federal advisory committee,

empanelled by EPA, on method detection and quantitation limits. The federal advisory

committee recommended that the quantitation limit of a test method should be based on the 95th

percentile of what is being achieved by the commercial laboratories.87 Using this approach and

rounding up the quantitation limit to a single digit, as EPA has done for floor setting, would

82 76 Fed. Reg. 29,541.

83 76 Fed. Reg. 29,546; Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 11 (April 11, 2011).

84 40 C.F.R. Part 136, Appendix B; see also http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/facts.html#lab.

85 EPA Method 301, 2004 version; Wisconsin DNR Analytical Detection Limit Guidance, April 1996,

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/lc/outreach/-publications/lod%20guidance%20document.pdf.

86 See, e.g., L.H. Keith, et al., Principles of Environmental Analysis, 55 Analytical Chemistry 2210-2218 (1983); see

also, Rigo, H.G. and Chandler, A.J., Quantitation Limits for Reference Methods 23, 26, and 29, J. Air & Waste

Manage. Assoc. 1999, 49:399-410.

87 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in Clean Water

Act Programs Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (December 28, 2007), available at:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/det/upload/final-report-200712.pdf.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

58

result in a quantitation limit between 0.1 and 0.2 ng/dscm, based on analytical procedures

alone.88 This level is comparable to the existing dioxin furan standard for hazardous waste

combustors. We do note, however, the results of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(“ASME”) ReMAP study, cited with approval by EPA,89 evaluated the precision of Method 23

dioxins/furans stack testing measurements. The ASME study concluded that measurement

results must be above 0.19 ng ITEQ/dscm to establish, with 95% confidence, that a true stack

concentration is exceeded for a single measurement. When relying on triplicate measurements,

compliance with an emission limit of 0.095 ng ITEQ/dscm (rounded to 0.1 ng/dscm) would be

assured with a 95% confidence level if the triplicate sample average is below 0.04 ng/dscm.

Taking the REMAP study into consideration, it is unlikely that PVC-only plants would be

confident in measurements generated to prove compliance with the proposed limit of 0.023

ng/dscm. Thus, if EPA persists in setting limits for PVC-only vent oxidizers (and all similar gas

fired combustion devices), the limit should be set no lower than 0.1 ng TEQ/dscm.

Also of relevance here, EPA recently decided not to propose dioxin/furan standards for

coal and oil-fired electricity generating units in its recently issued Utility MACT90 on grounds

that the majority of the available data are below method detection and/or reporting limits (“nondetect,” or “ND”). According to EPA, “[o]verall, the available test methods are technically

challenged, to the point of providing results that are questionable for all of the organic HAP.”91

The levels of dioxin/furan reported by PVCPU oxidizers are also very low, and largely nondetect. Consequently, dioxins/furans at PVCPU oxidizers should not be controlled by numerical

limits.

The PVCPU oxidizers are designed to limit dioxin/furan formation, as they operate with

appropriate residence time and at high combustion temperatures, and the stack gas is

immediately quenched, as the oxidizers are followed by wet scrubbers. Indeed, EPA

acknowledged in the April 20, 2004 preamble to the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT that

these conditions are favorable for low dioxins/furans formation; therefore, these would be

appropriate work practices to set, in lieu of numeric dioxins/furans standards.92 As discussed

elsewhere in these comments, it is not feasible to install activated carbon injection and fabric

filters on the PVC industry’s thermal oxidizer systems, as EPA suggests. Work practices can

and should be used to limit dioxins/furans emissions.

88 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-3301, Late Comment Submitted by Yves Tondeur: Analytical

Perspectives’ Method 23 Fitness-for-Purpose Practical Limit of Quantitation for Isotope Dilution-Selected Ion

Monitoring-Mass Spectrometry (ID-SIM-MS) (July 15, 2011).

89 76 Fed. Reg. 29,546. Lanier, W.S. and Hendrix, C.D. Final Report -- Reference Method Accuracy and Precision

(ReMAP): Phase 1 Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, ASME International, Washington, D.C.

(2001).

90 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam

Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 76. Fed. Reg. 24,976 (May 3,

2011) (“Utility MACT”).

91 76 Fed. Reg. 25,040.

92 76 Fed. Reg. 21,240 – 21,241, 21,249.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

59

The Working Group submits that measurement and quantification of the actual,

extremely low or non-existent dioxin emission levels from the PVCPU process vent floor units is

technologically infeasible.93 Accordingly, imposition and enforcement of an emission limit that

cannot be measured is unwarranted and violates the Due Process protections afforded by the

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Requiring work practices (e.g., minimum residence

time and temperature, oxidizer burner tuning, measuring oxygen content, use of a scrubber

following the oxidizer) in order to comply with the process vent limits for organic HAPs and

HCl necessarily will result in successful combustion and minimizes conditions conducive to

dioxins/furans formation. Establishing a numerical emission standard is not necessary or useful.

3. Activated Carbon Injection and Fabric Filters Cannot be Installed on

PVCPU Process Vents

The Working Group submits that the assumed use of activated carbon injection and fabric

filters, as suggested by EPA, is a beyond-the-floor control. No PVC manufacturing facility is

using activated carbon injection (“ACI”) or a fabric filter. Indeed, the Working Group has been

unable to identify any source with comparable levels of dioxin/furan emissions that actually uses

activated carbon on a similar type of control equipment system.

Similarly, we have been unable to identify any other technology that is currently in use

on a control equipment configuration that is similar to our vent oxidizer trains, or any natural gas

fired boiler with similar dioxin/furan emission levels. Working Group members contacted

several suppliers to confirm the availability of this technology. Uniformly, these vendors, who

certainly have an interest in promoting and selling their technology, were concerned that the high

moisture present in PVCPU vent gas streams after absorbers may interfere with the dioxin/furan

removal effectiveness of the proposed carbon and bag filter combination in the acidic

environment created by HCl. See Attachment 13.

The Working Group notes that at least one reference94 suggests that carbon injection

actually may enhance formation of dioxin/furan in cases where minute levels are present. Even

if eventually removed by a control device, (e.g., bag filter), this can create an increased cross

media transfer of the dioxin/furan. Several suppliers of the equipment indicate that development

work would be needed to test such an application of ACI/bag filters on PVC thermal

oxidizer/scrubbers.

The Working Group is aware that ACI is most effective in reducing larger concentrations

of dioxin/furans from some types of waste incinerator exhaust gases at temperatures between

300oF and 600oF and at low moisture contents. There are two or three locations where ACI

equipment might conceivably be installed on a PVCPU vent gas system: (1) between the

thermal oxidizer and the absorber/wet scrubber; (2) after a separate absorber before a scrubber,

for systems with this equipment configuration; or (3) after the absorber/wet scrubber. The vent

gas environments are different in these locations, but none of the locations offer conditions for

93 Arguably, it is economically impracticable as well, as the technological constraints inherent in the measurement

and sampling equipment and methodology cannot be overcome by the investment of reasonable resources in

currently available technology.

94 Ya-Hsin Wang, et. al., Characteristics of PCDD/Fs in a Particles Filtration Device with Activated Carbon

Injection, 9 Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 317-322 (2009).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

60

good performance of the ACI. At the first location, the vent gas temperature leaving the thermal

oxidizer would be above the ACI effective operating range. At the second and third locations,

the vent gas would be saturated with water after leaving the absorbers or scrubbers and would

cause poor performance of both the ACI and the fabric filter.

To achieve the appropriate temperature window for a vent gas stream entering the ACI

between the thermal oxidizer and scrubber, the operator likely would need to use an evaporative

cooler to cool the gas with water. However, the gas stream leaving the cooler would have high

moisture content (at least 40% as estimated by EPA). There is a significant risk that ACI would

not be effective to control dioxins/furans emissions for gases having high moisture conditions.

In addition, the moisture content of the vent gas to the fabric filter could lead to operating

problems, such as blinding the filter caused by water condensation on the fabric filter bags.

To condition the vent gas stream after the scrubber prior to ACI control would likely

require a filter/condenser to reduce excess water, followed by a heater to raise the vent gas

temperature above its dew point. EPA did not consider the feasibility cost for vent gas

conditioning when determining the dioxins/furans control costs, as required for beyond-the-floor

controls.

In addition, as this technology is not being used in the PVC industry, it should, at a

minimum, be considered a beyond-the-floor technology. EPA cites a reduction benefit of only

0.022 g/yr dioxin/furan from 17 plants. The annualized cost benefit factor for the entire industry

would be $240 million/g dioxin/furan. Based on this analysis, the use of ACI with bag filters

generates significant technical feasibility questions, provides no significant reduction benefit,

and is not cost effective. The Working Group submits that the Agency has leapfrogged its

obligation by proposing a beyond-the-floor limit without first assessing whether the technology

in use by the five best-performing facilities actually is in use throughout the industry.

Finally, the total capital and total annual costs estimated by EPA for ACI are well below

the actual cost of ACI systems, due to EPA’s use of outdated information. The Working Group

has obtained a cost quote from one ACI vendor that more accurately represents the projected

costs. The Working Group estimated the total capital costs for ACI for the five facilities that

would not meet the proposed limit at approximately $5,000,000, as compared to EPA’s cost of

$112,732. We estimated the total annual cost of about $2,600,000/year, compared to EPA’s cost

of $360,000/year for the same five facilities.

F. Revisions are Needed to the Monitoring and Testing Provisions for Process Vents

The Working Group strongly recommends that the final PVC MACT rule allow for an

option for the continued use of existing vinyl chloride monitoring system, with an option to

substitute a THC CEMS, similar to the existing Vinyl Chloride NESHAPs. Continuous vinyl

chloride monitoring equipment has been used on process vents for the last 35 years. The Agency

has presented no rationale or explanation in the preamble for why the current CEMS requirement

has been removed from the proposed rule.

Emission monitors yielding real time emission data have been a preferred approach by

EPA and the public. At a meeting with Working Group members held at EPA’s Research
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

61

Triangle Park Campus on June 30, 2011,95 however, EPA personnel indicated that vinyl chloride

CEMS were not incorporated into the proposed rule because a performance specification was not

readily available for use. The Working Group finds this position puzzling, given that a 1985

EPA review of CEMS and CPMS monitors found that both types of monitors tested in the field

were reasonably accurate in the 2 – 10 ppm range.96

The Working Group recognizes that accuracy limitations of the monitoring equipment

must be factored into standard setting, as was done in the Portland Cement MACT, which

required continuous monitors for HCL. Indeed, some existing instruments may have relative

accuracy limitations at levels less than 1 ppm, and would need to be addressed, depending on the

level of the final vinyl chloride limit. Nevertheless, the Working Group submits that even if the

final rule is silent on these monitors, it is unlikely that state or local air agencies would allow

PVC plants to discontinue their use. Consequently, it is in all parties’ interest to allow the

continued use of vinyl chloride CEMS as an alternative for demonstrating compliance. The

Working Group’s other recommendations on CEMS testing and monitoring follow.

1. If a Site Uses an Existing Vinyl Chloride CEMS to Comply with the Vinyl

Chloride Limitation, No Additional CPMS Monitoring or VCM Stack

Testing Should be Required. Less Frequent TOH/THC Stack Tests Could

Still be Required.

Existing continuous VCM monitors provide a very good indicator of proper thermal

oxidizer or absorber operation. Vinyl chloride, as measured by the industry’s current monitors,

is the best indicator of whether the control equipment (oxidizers and absorbers) is functioning

properly. If high inlet vinyl chloride is adequately reduced and measured, it is also very likely

that the other inlet organic HAPs are also adequately oxidized. For example, one member site

utilizes a thermal oxidizer/absorber/scrubber control system that exhibits inlet vinyl chloride

levels of 85% of the inlet total organic HAP. A review of bond enthalpy (energy to break

chemical bonds) on this plant’s inlet stream indicated that if VCM is destroyed, 95% of the total

organic HAP inlet mass will also be destroyed. Thermal destruction for vinyl chloride and

compounds having bond energy less than vinyl chloride means that low outlet vinyl chloride

monitor readings are predictive of high overall destruction efficiency for the majority of HAP

compounds introduced to this thermal oxidizer. Therefore, where existing real time vinyl

chloride CEMS are used, no other frequent VCM or TOH/THC stack testing or CPMS

requirements are necessary. If vinyl chloride CEMS are being used, stack testing is not needed

for VCM and should be required no more frequently than once every five years for TOH/THC.

2. Stack Test Methods Should be Expanded to Allow Those Methods Used

to Generate the CAA Section 114 Request Test Data. Stack Testing

Frequency Should, As a Maximum, be Adjustable in a Fashion Similar to

the Boiler and Process Heater MACT.

The Working Group supports adding additional test methods to the allowable methods

proposed for stack performance testing. For example, for vinyl chloride, EPA comingled the top

95 As of the date of these comments, a summary of this meeting had not been placed in the public docket.

96 George W. Schell, EPA Environmental Systems Laboratory, Develop, Evaluate and Validate Continuous

Monitors for Designated Hazardous Pollutants, EPA/800/84-85/037 (June 1985).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

62

five facility data from both Method 320 FTIR and Method 0031 summa canister methods. In

addition, Method 18 is specified for measuring compliance. Individual circumstances (e.g., a

new plant) may warrant use of a different approved test method to achieve lower limits of

detection. Since numerous methods were used to set emission limits, a site should be able to use

any one of the approved methods without the need to seek alternative approval.

Under the final Boiler and Process Heater MACT, performance testing for a given

pollutant may be conducted every three (3) years, instead of annually, if measured emissions

during two (2) consecutive annual performance tests are less than seventy-five percent (75%) of

the applicable emission limit. EPA should provide PVC sources with the same degree of

flexibility for well-performing sources with respect to TOH/THC. In addition, for dioxin/furan,

assuming EPA persists in establishing a limit, the testing requirement for PVC sources should be

limited to an initial test demonstrating compliance with the limit, with no additional testing,

provided the unit’s design is not modified in a manner inconsistent with good combustion

practices. These flexible testing strategies for well-performing sources, coupled with work

practices to conduct annual burner tune-ups and to continuously measure oxygen to assure

complete combustion, are reasonably appropriate and fully within EPA’s discretionary authority.

Furthermore, as stated previously, if a VCM CEMS is employed, no VCM test should be

required, and TOH/THC tests should be required only once every five years.

3. Compliance Demonstrations Should be Based on Either TOH or THC

Since both TOH and THC limits are indicated in the rule, the Working Group asks EPA

to add a provision that allows compliance demonstrations using THC, as proposed, or TOH

(excluding dioxin/furan and VCM, which are considered separately). Methods used would be

the same ones used to gather the CAA section 114 request data. The Working Group notes the

advantages of Method 25A for THC include that it is relatively inexpensive to run, has been used

in previous New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”), captures a wide variety of organics,

can be measured with a CEMS device, and may be consistent with EPA’s current Uniform

Standard approach. However, THC also has limitations, including the fact that it is not always

specific for organic HAP, and can be affected by methane (natural gas) or other inlet non-HAP

organics (e.g., ethylene). This could then require that additional test methods, like those used to

gather data for the proposed rule, be utilized. To account for the practical considerations, EPA

should include in the final PVC MACT an approach similar to the recent Portland Cement

MACT allowing a site to demonstrate compliance with either a TOH or THC limit. TOH

compounds to be measured would be selected as the ones measured in the inlet stream (and

would include the iso-octane in the case of the absorbers) and by using process knowledge. The

Working Group supports use of the TOH/THC approach so that individual raw materials and

byproducts can change, while organic HAP emission levels remain capped.

The Working Group also asks EPA to clarify why it did not set the THC limit based on

non-methane hydrocarbons to ensure that ethane and methane spikes do not impact compliance

demonstrations. Absent an overriding concern, the Working Group suggests that EPA set the

THC limit based on non-methane hydrocarbons. This would ensure that a natural gas spike,

particularly during a cold startup, does not necessarily indicate TOH/THC non-compliance.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

63

4. Stack Performance Testing Should Not Include Startup and Shutdown

Events. The THC Limit Must Accommodate Startup and Shutdown

Emissions for a Site that Employs THC CEMS.

Clarification is requested on how to treat startup and shutdown (“SU/SD”) events that

periodically contribute to measured TOH/THC levels. This proposed rule indicates that the

typical exclusion for SU/SD events, listed in section 63.7(e)(1) of the General Provisions, will be

removed. The implicit assumption, therefore, is that the proposed emissions limits apply during

SU/SD, as well as during normal operations. However, it is highly unlikely that SU/SD events

were included in any of the TOHAP stack sampling, since the instructions on page three of CAA

section 114 request, Enclosure 1, instructed facilities not to include SU/SD events in the

sampling period. Therefore, the proposed emission limits are not supported with SU/SD data.

Arguably, SU/SD events cannot be included in the scope of the proposed emissions limits if the

expectation is to require compliance stack tests under normal operating conditions, without

SU/SD events. The rule language needs modification.

It is nearly impossible to evaluate short term and widely varying SU/SD emission spikes

on a consistent basis and it is impractical to incorporate SU/SD events into a stack test. A

second option is to use a work practice standard to manage SU/SD events because it is

technically impractical to consistently measure levels of THC that are highly variable and

dependent on SU/SD events. Appropriate work practices can include managing these events by

operating the oxidizers according to manufacturer’s recommendations, using internal procedures

to minimize the time period for each SU/SD event, and conducting annual burner tune-ups, as

mentioned above, in a manner similar to what is incorporated into the recently promulgated

Boiler and Process Heater MACT and area source standards.

A few SU/SD events were inadvertently captured during the 30-day THC sampling for

the proposed PVC MACT. However, setting a THC emission limit at the proposed 2 ppm level

does not provide an adequate allowance for periods where these events take place. Therefore, if

compliance is to be demonstrated with use of a THC CEMS, a different approach to calculating

the numerical limit is required. Perhaps a 99.9% UPL limit can be calculated, in a manner

similar to the CO limit in the Boiler and Process Heater MACT. However, since it is not

practical to plan and test for all maintenance and unplanned outages, a work practice standard to

operate the oxidizers according to the manufacturer’s recommended specification that minimizes

the number and length of each of the SU/SD events, as stated previously, appears to be the best

option to minimize these short duration temporary emissions.

Note that locations that have two thermal oxidizers venting to one stack have

significantly more THC variations due to startup, shutdowns, and load shift events. Therefore,

these situations need to be properly accounted for in the final rule.

5. EPA Should Not Require Dioxins/Furans CEMS

EPA should remove the requirement for dioxins/furans CEMS for new sources for two

reasons. First, the Working Group has not found a commercially available dioxins/furans CEMS

in the U.S. Secondly, EPA has not promulgated a final Performance Specification for a

dioxins/furans CEMS. The Working Group is aware of a continuous long-term sampling system

offered by one vendor that is being used in Europe to measure dioxins/furans concentrations. A
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

64

representative of this vendor indicated that their sampling system in Europe can measure low

concentrations of dioxins/furans. However, the vendor has not provided any demonstration as to

the accuracy of measuring these low dioxins/furans concentrations. The representative stated

that EPA has validated their system to a level of 0.2 ng/dscm, but this level is an order of

magnitude above the proposed standard.

We have concerns with the ability of EPA’s test methods to measure dioxins/furans

concentrations at the level of the proposed standard. We also have concerns about the ability of

any dioxins/furans CEMS to measure those levels. EPA should not require CEMS as the

measurement technique for a standard that was set using one-time, 3-run stack test. As these

standards are meant to apply at all times, CEMS data should be used to set a standard for which

CEMS are the compliance method, in order to appropriately account for variability. Further,

EPA failed to provide a cost for dioxins/furans CEMS for new sources in its cost analysis.

6. EPA Should Evaluate Whether Available HCL CEMS Equipment Can

Measure the Proposed New Plant Standard and Reevaluate the HCL

CEMS Cost Estimate.

Installation and operation of HCl and THC CEMS are listed as optional for existing

sources, but mandatory for new units. The EPA estimated cost for initial installation of HCl/O2

CEMS using the EPA CEMS estimator is $165,635.97 The EPA annualized cost over 10 years

including 7% interest, annual certifications, recordkeeping, and reporting, is $50,897. These

costs are based on installation at an existing facility, addition of one new platform, and no CEMS

currently being installed. The cost for THC/O2 CEMS under the same assumptions is roughly

the same. For installation of both monitoring systems, the initial cost would be $189,909 with an

annualized cost over 10 years of $59,686. Beyond 10 years, the projected annual cost for

operation, maintenance, and reporting for the CEMS is estimated at $27,310. None of these

values have been adjusted for inflation. Also, since no Performance Specification is available for

HCl CEMS, it is unclear what periodic Relative Accuracy tests will be needed and the cost for

conducting these tests.

The proposed rule does not specify the instrumentation principles of this monitoring

equipment for HCl. Though the measurement range of HCl CEMS should be able to reasonably

show compliance with the proposed 150 ppmvd limit for existing units, it is unclear whether the

current technology can demonstrate compliance with the proposed new plant limit of 0.17

ppmvd. (In addition, it is also unclear whether the required accuracy is available from the

proposed stack test specified in Method 26A). The Working Group recommends that EPA

remove the CEMS option for HCl and only require a CPMS approach for continuous compliance

determination.

V. Requirements Governing Closed Vent Systems Must be Revised

The Working Group supports the comments on the proposed closed vents requirements

filed by the American Chemistry Council. If promulgated, the proposed PVC MACT would

impose the strictest requirements ever for closed vent systems.98 The Agency asserts that it

97 The costs are reported in 2007 dollars.

98 76 Fed. Reg. 29,570-29,573 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11930).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

65

based its requirements for closed vent systems on those requirements laid out in 40 C.F.R. Part

63, subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices,

Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process)(“subpart SS”).99 The

Agency, however, would vastly expand the regulation of closed vents beyond subpart SS by: (1)

requiring flow indicators equipped with an electronic alarm system that requires immediate

action and results in an automatic violation; (2) making no provision for maintenance activities;

(3) expanding the inspection requirements, and (4) failing to provide the exemptions in section

63.983(a)(3) for equipment needed for safety purposes such as pressure relief devices, low leg

drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, and open-ended valves or lines. Critically, EPA has

provided no rationale or explanation for this expansion, or why the current closed vent system

requirements under subpart SS are insufficient.

A. Requirements for Bypasses Must be Revised

Under the proposed rule, for each closed vent system that contains a bypass, a PVCPU

would automatically be in violation of the rule if any emissions are discharged to the atmosphere

through the bypass.100 The Agency proposes that automatic violations for discharge to the

atmosphere can occur under two circumstances. First, for bypasses that do not contain an

automatic flow control valve and have manual lock-and-key flow control valves, a violation

would occur anytime the manual valve is opened. Second, if a bypass flow indicator equipped

with an automatic alarm system is installed and maintained, then any indication of flow through

the bypass is a violation.101

EPA determined that these provisions are appropriate “to ensure that any flow directed to

a bypass is detected and addressed by the operator.”102 This proposed provision, however, is

overly broad and does not provide the only assurance that a flow directed to a bypass will be

detected and addressed. Under other CAA regulations, the Agency has required installation of

flow indicators that are capable of taking periodic readings to address bypass monitoring and

require that visual inspections of the seal or closure mechanism are performed at least

monthly.103 For example, the HON requires that flow indicators take a reading at least once

every 15 minutes and requires that facilities keep hourly records as to whether a diversion was

detected at any time during the hour.104 Never before has the Agency provided for automatic

violations if flows are detected or if the manual valve is opened.

Under the Part 61 NESHAP, PVCPUs currently are prohibited from bypassing a control

device, unless specific federally enforceable exemptions apply (e.g., emergency manual vent

valve discharges and emergency relief discharges). As such, PVCPU have operating procedures

and mechanisms in place to prevent bypasses.

99 76 Fed. Reg. 29,553.

100 76 Fed. Reg. 29,570 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11930(c)).

101 76 Fed. Reg. 29,553.

102 76 Fed. Reg. 29,553.

103 See 40 C.F.R. § 63.114(d); see also 40 C.F.R. § 63.983(a)(3).

104 40 C.F.R. § 63.114(d); 40 C.F.R. § 63.118(a)(3).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

66

As seen in the HON and subpart SS, installation of flow indicators and visual inspections

ensure that operators are aware and can address any issues involving flows to a bypass.

Automatic violations of the rule will not necessarily ensure that a flow directed to a bypass is

detected. Accordingly, the Working Group believes that EPA should remove the provision

subjecting PVCPUs to automatic violations of the rule.

Under the proposed rule, the Agency is also proposing that PVCPUs would be in

automatic violation of the emissions limits if either a seal or closure mechanism is broken on a

bypass valve or a bypass valve is diverted.105 As the proposed rule does not provide an

exemption for maintenance activities on minor ancillary equipment that may be on a closed vent

system, such as opening a low leg drain or a high point bleed, it would be a violation to perform

maintenance on the system as “[a] broken seal...constitutes a violation from the emission

limits...”106 This is a contradiction to EPA’s CAA general duty clause both within this Part and

Part 68, Risk Management Program. In addition, if a control device is by-passed, that does not

automatically mean that a violation occurred if the PVCPU did all it could to prevent the release,

but the cause of the release was outside of the Unit’s control (e.g., direct lightning hit; terrorist

attack; catastrophic mechanical failure, etc).

In addition, bypasses can occur in very rare situations for valid safety reasons. Operators

should be allowed to establish an affirmative defense for a bypass, rather than face an automatic

violation, per section 63.11895(a)(4). The affirmative defense criteria acknowledges the

potential for safety related situations where emissions must take place to avoid loss of life,

personal injury, or severe property damage. The affirmative defense criteria also includes

limited circumstances, described in section (a)(6), where safety aspects could entail shutdown of

monitoring or control equipment. If no design, maintenance, or operational error is involved in a

bypass, these limited circumstances should not be violations subject to penalties.

B. Definition of Bypass Should be Revised

The Working Group believes that the definition of bypass should be modified. EPA is

proposing to define “bypass” as the following:

to direct a process vent or closed vent system stream to the atmosphere such that

it does not first pass through an emission control device.107

This definition, however, fails to provide an exemption for attachments for temporary

connections used for maintenance activities. Maintenance conducted on closed vent systems is

always used with a connection to a vacuum for removing or adding materials. The flow from the

closed vent system to the vacuum is never released into the atmosphere. If EPA fails to provide

such an exemption, PVCPUs will be prohibited from conducting maintenance activities on the

line, a result that obviously is contrary to protection of the environment.

105 76 Fed. Reg. 29,570 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11930(c)).

106 76 Fed. Reg. 29,571 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11930(c)(2)(i)).

107 76 Fed. Reg. 29,596 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

67

While the HON distinguishes maintenance type valves from bypass line valves,108 the

proposed PVC MACT fails to do so. Under the HON, maintenance valves are exempt from

process vent monitoring requirements because they are not truly capable of diverting the vent

stream from a control device to the atmosphere. EPA should incorporate the same distinction in

the final PVC MACT rule.

Furthermore, the Agency has not proposed allowances in the proposed rule for low leg

drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, and pressure relief valves

needed for safety purposes, as it has done in other CAA regulations.109 In the final PVC MACT

rule, EPA must provide the same types of exclusions as in prior standards so that operators may

safely maintain their equipment without running afoul of the rule.

C. Requirements for Bypasses Flow Indicators Must be Revised

The Agency is proposing to require bypass flow indicators be equipped with an alarm

system that will immediately alert an operator when a flow is detected in the bypass. Once

alerted an operator is required to initiate procedures to identify the cause of the alarm and report

any alarm to the Administrator within 10 days. EPA, however, provides no rationale for

requiring such stringent requirements and fails to take into account the cost of imposing alarm

systems on bypass flow indicators.

The Working Group believes there is no need to equip bypass flow indicators with an

alarm system. The ambient area monitoring systems and other instrumentation currently

installed on pressure relief devices is currently sufficient to provide notice to operators of

releases. To impose additional costly bypass flow indicators that provide no additional

environmental benefits is unjustified. Accordingly, the Agency should remove the proposed

requirements and incorporate the bypass requirements under subpart SS.

VI. Wastewater Limitations are Incorrect, Needlessly Complex, Should Distinguish

Between Inprocess and Maintenance Wastewaters and Should be Revised

The Agency’s proposal would require PVC facilities to determine the vinyl chloride

concentration of each wastewater stream at the point of generation (“POG”). Streams with 10

ppmw vinyl chloride or more must be treated and the vinyl chloride concentration reduced to

0.11 ppmw for existing sources and 0.0060 ppmw for new sources. The 10 ppmw determination

108 See EPA Applicablity Determination Index, Control Number 9700100; available at:

http://www.epa.gov/oecaadix/pdf/adi-nsps-9700100.pdf (“Although NSPS Subpart DDD does not distinguish

maintenance type valves from by-pass line valves, the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, commonly referred to as the

HON, does provide a distinction. As noted in your request, Subpart G of the HON provides a monitoring exemption

to maintenance valves at 63.114(d). While maintenance valves are exempted from process vent monitoring

requirements, by-pass line valves truly capable of diverting the vent stream from a control device to the atmosphere

are not exempted.”).

109 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 63.114(d) (National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and

Wastewater); 40 C.F.R. § 63.172(j)(3) (National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants For

Equipment Leaks); and 40 C.F.R. § 63.983(a)(3) (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control

Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

68

must occur before the wastewater stream is exposed to the atmosphere, mixed with other

wastewaters, enters a wastewater treatment process, or is discharged untreated.110

Wastewater streams with flow rates greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute (l/min),

and a HAP concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw (using the HAP list in Table 9,

Subpart G, as determined by Method 8260B and using Method 305 for methanol) must comply

with the HON wastewater requirements at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, subpart G, and as specified in the

proposed rule. EPA is not requiring further vinyl chloride or HAP reduction for: (1) wastewater

streams containing less than 10 ppmw vinyl chloride (at the POG); and (2) streams that either

contain less than 1,000 ppmw total HAP, or have a flow rate less than the 10 l/min criteria at the

HON point of determination (“POD”). However, facilities would be required to ensure these

streams remain below these levels.

The Agency’s MACT floor analysis is based on year 2008 section 114 survey

responses.

111 The Working Group has significant concerns about the Agency’s proposals

regarding wastewater, and in particular, its needless complexity. As we discuss further below,

because wastewater systems above 10 ppm VCM at PVC facilities are already required to be

closed to the atmosphere, use of a POG is unnecessary and EPA simply should retain the HON

POD approach. EPA also must recalculate the wastewater vinyl chloride concentration limit

using real data, rather than the annual averages reported on survey forms, engineering estimates,

or data that is not reflective of actual operations.

The Working Group also believes that maintenance wastewater streams should be

regulated independently of inprocess wastewater streams. As it is not possible to capture

fugitive HAPs emitted from the wide variety of maintenance wastewater streams and then

convey them to a control device, the Working Group submits that an emission limit is infeasible

for these streams and EPA should require compliance with a work practice standard instead.

In addition, EPA needs to clarify which inprocess wastewater streams require control and

treatment, and must provide exemptions for certain safety-related streams. The Working Group

also submits that facilities should not be required to continue to sample and analyze the POG or

POD wastewater stream if the facility opts to comply with the control requirements.

A. Wastewater Floor Limits for Wastewater Strippers Must be Recalculated to use

Actual Sampling Data and Test Data Reflecting Actual Operating Conditions

As currently constituted, the MACT floor calculation does not take into account the

variability inherent in measurements of vinyl chloride concentration for wastewater stripper

discharges. EPA’s calculations appear to use data based on annual averages and engineering

estimates provided in Worksheet K-3-b of SurveyPart2. Unfortunately, the values reported

consisted of a mixture of estimated average vinyl chloride concentrations, or in some cases,

engineering estimates. For instance, the 0.006 ppmw value used by EPA to set the limit for new

sources was an engineering estimate that was not based on actual data.

110 76 Fed. Reg. 29,586 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11965 and at Table 3 to Subpart HHHHHHH).

111 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 20.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

69

Recognizing the very significant limitations of the data that EPA had on wastewater

stripper vinyl chloride (“VC”) concentrations, the Working group surveyed PVC facilities and

requested complete data sets of wastewater stripper (“WW Stripper”) VC concentrations for year

2008 (the same time period requested in the 2009 Survey). Since there is no continuous

monitoring compliance requirement under the current NESHAP for WW Stripper discharge, the

available data varied significantly from PVC facilities, from very few data points to weekly, to

daily, to 3 times a day. That data has been provided, reviewed, and analyzed for top 5

performers, and further utilized to calculate a statistically derived UPL value using EPA’s

methodology.

Section 63.11975(a)(3)(ii) would require that for the first 12 months of compliance

testing for vinyl chloride, the calculated 12 month rolling average limitation must be met

monthly. This proposed requirement presents the same problems and calls for alternatives

similar to those proposed by the Working Group for TOHAP monitoring at page 39 through 40

of these comments. PVCPUs should be allowed to gather WW Stripper VC data for the year

prior to the initial demonstration of compliance so that the first month of continuous compliance

can be calculated as a 12 month rolling average as set forth in section 63.11975(a)(3)(iii).

The Agency’s proposed approach may work well for top performers, but for PVCPUs

that must construct new WW Strippers or other control devices to come into compliance with the

new limits, there may not be sufficient time to gather one-year data before the initial

demonstration of compliance. In that case, a different less stringent limit should be calculated

from the existing data and should apply for monthly sample compliance before the 12-month

rolling average limit can be applied. The Working Group endorses both of these alternatives.

The Working Group’s proposed re-calculated wastewater stripper discharge vinyl chloride

limitations are shown below, along with the months 1 through 11 monthly limitations that should

apply before the vinyl chloride limit becomes a rolling average. The Excel spreadsheets

explaining this evaluation are included in the separate electronic submittal to EPA, and in

Attachment 7.

Table 9: Proposed Re-Calculated Wastewater Stripper Discharge Vinyl Chloride Limitations

Existing Sources New Sources

All Units ppmw

Vinyl Chloride

rolling average

Vinyl Chloride

monthly limit

Vinyl Chloride

rolling average

Vinyl Chloride

monthly limit

WW Stripper

Discharge

monthly sampling

0.481 6.777 0.133 0.276

B. Remove the “Point of Generation” Concept from the PVC MACT and Employ the

“clean and unambiguous” Point of Determination Approach Now Used in the

Hazardous Organic NESHAPs (HON)

PVC and copolymer units are currently regulated under the VCM NESHAP’s inprocess

wastewater requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(b)(9). Under the VCM NESHAP, inprocess

wastewater streams with a concentration of 10 ppm VCM, when measured at the point where the

stream leaves a piece of equipment and before it is mixed with other wastewater streams, must
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

70

be reduced to a concentration of less than 10 ppm VCM (40 C.F.R. § 61.65(b)(9)(i)). Any VCM

emissions removed from the affected inprocess wastewater streams must vent to a control device.

Under the PVC MACT, EPA proposes to require that VCM-containing wastewater

streams be regulated starting at the POG,112 while TOHAP-containing wastewater streams would

be regulated at the POD.113

The Working Group suggests that the HON’s POD approach, coupled with the VCM

NESHAP’s definitions, should be maintained as the overarching wastewater requirements under

the PVC MACT because:

 As required under the VCM NESHAP’s enforceable emission and wastewater

treatment requirements, PVC units have enclosed wastewater conveyance systems,

wastewater stripper limitations, and wastewater emission control mechanisms already

in place;

 The POG concept is not defined or explained within either the VCM NESHAP or the

proposed PVC MACT;

 EPA’s past determinations abandoned the POG concept for the POD approach;

 Many PVCPUs are co-located at VCM units, which are already required to comply

with HON’s POD associated wastewater emission and treatment controls; and

 EPA, within the proposed PVC MACT, has already determined that portions of HON

wastewater requirements are MACT for PVCPUs.

1. POG is an Overly Complex Concept and PVCPUs Already are Controlling

Wastewater

The POG concept is very different than the POD concept, and as such, the proposed PVC

MACT is unclear as to which wastewater stream would be regulated, and how. There has long

been confusion within the regulated community about the POG concept. Objections to this

approach were raised during the HON rulemaking and subsequently led to litigation over the

HON’s initial wastewater requirements.114 These initial HON requirements were based on the

Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP’s (“BWON”) POG approach. After settling the litigation,

in 1996, EPA proposed the POD concept in order to address problems with the clarity and

structure of HON’s wastewater provisions.115 The POG approach was abandoned for the POD

approach in a final HON rule published on January 17, 1997.116

112 76 Fed. Reg. 29,586 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11965(b)).

113 76 Fed. Reg. 29,586 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11965(c)).

114 Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, No. 94–1463 (D.C. Cir. filed June 1994); Chemical Manufacturers

Association v. EPA, 94–1464 (D.C. Cir. filed June 1994); Dow Chemical Company v. EPA, 94–1465 (D.C. Cir. filed

June 1994).

115 See 61 Fed. Reg 43,698, 43,711 (August 26, 1996).

116 See 62 Fed. Reg. 2,722, 2,726 (January 17, 1997).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

71

In short, when using the POG concept from BWON, which is defined within Part 61,

Subpart FF, EPA determined that there is no “bright line” as to when a water stream becomes a

waste. HON’s POD concept established a “bright line,” while still maintaining the BWONcomparable emission controls and treatment requirements. BWON defines POG as:

Point of waste generation means the location where the waste stream exits the

process unit component or storage tank prior to handling or treatment in an

operation that is not an integral part of the production process, or in the case of

waste management units that generate new wastes after treatment, the location

where the waste stream exits the waste management unit component.117

HON defines POD as:

Point of determination means each point where process wastewater exits the

chemical manufacturing process unit.118

The regulated community generally categorizes a water stream in which material is being

recovered (e.g., collecting an oil layer from a water tank and recycling it back into the production

process) as still an integral part of the production process. The water stream becomes a “waste”

(or not integral to the process) when useful hydrocarbons are no longer being recovered for use

from the stream. The enforcement community has classified the point where a stream is not

integral to the process in a location further upstream than normally considered by production

personnel. Hence, a lack of clarity in the exact POG location occurs. On the other hand,

production personnel can clearly identify when a water stream exits its manufacturing unit,

which defines a POD.

After litigation, EPA concluded that the POG concept was “inherently foreign” to the

regulated community. EPA promulgated a new approach, the POD approach, which replaced the

POG concept so that the rule would be “clear and unambiguous”:

A fundamental premise of the POG concept is that a clear distinction can be made

between process equipment and waste management units. In development of the

April 1994 rule, EPA emphasized that the distinction was based on whether the

material and the unit in which it is managed is an integral part of the production

process. The EPA has learned since 1994 that industry has numerous

interpretation of the concept of “integral to the process” and hence the POG

concept. Interpretations vary because evaluation of what is integral to the process

takes into consideration economic and process design factors as well as

knowledge of the process and the industry. Because processes and configurations

of equipment in facilities subject to this rule vary widely, it is difficult to develop

a set of criteria that can be used to make clear distinctions between process and

waste management equipment. The combination of this problem with the

ambiguities and the lack of specificity in the other key wastewater definitions

(e.g., wastewater) have resulted in a rule that may be misinterpreted. It is

117 40 C.F.R. § 61.341.

118 40 C.F.R. § 63.111.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

72

important that the rule be clear and unambiguous so that all parties interpret its

requirement consistently. Because of issues raised since promulgation of the

April 1994 rules concerning EPA’s intent and the difficulty of making the POG

determination, the EPA has reevaluated the POG concept. As part of this

reevaluation, EPA reviewed the data that were used to develop the emission and

cost estimates for the April 1994 rule...because of the lack of consistency in the

responses, it is not possible to be certain that the emission and cost analysis used

in development of the April 1994 rule reflected the POG concept in the rule

language. Moreover, it is now apparent that the POG approach is inherently

foreign to the way facility operators view their processes and it is unlikely that

this concept would be generally accepted and understood by the regulated

community. Because of these practical problems, the EPA concluded that it was

appropriate to develop a new approach for the initial point of evaluation of a

wastewater stream. The new approach that would replace the POG is called the

point of determination (POD).119

As detailed above, the POG concept lacks clarity and compliance and enforcement specificity,

while the POD concept, after negotiations between litigants and EPA, now has clarity. The POD

concept still requires HAP emission controls and treatment limitations.

The Working Group suggests that EPA abandon the POG concept and only require the

POD concept. Under the POD concept, PVCPUs would be required to:

 Comply with HON’s Table 35, for any equipment that conveys inprocess

wastewater with a total annual average concentration greater than or equal to 10

ppmw VCM at an annual average flow rate of greater than or equal to 10 liters per

minute; and

 Comply with HON’s POD concept and associated HON requirements, as

proposed, for inprocess wastewater streams with a total annual average

concentration equal to or greater than 1,000 TOHAP ppm and the annual average

flow rate is greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute.

2. The Definitions of Inprocess Wastewater need to be Revised

In addition to complying with HON’s POD concept, the Working Group believes that

two key wastewater definitions need to be revised or added to the PVC MACT. The suggested

definitions follow below, with additional comments in subsequent sections.

EPA should revise the proposed definition of wastewater to follow the VCM NESHAP’s

inprocess definition:

Inprocess wastewater means any water which, during manufacturing or

processing, comes into direct contact with vinyl chloride or other TOHAP, or

results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product,

finished product, by-product, or waste product containing TOHAP, but which has

not been discharged to a wastewater treatment process or discharged untreated as

119 61 Fed. Reg. 43,698, 43,711 (August 26, 1996).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

73

wastewater. Examples are product tank drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water

formed during a chemical reaction or used as a reactant; water used to wash

impurities from organic products or reactants; water used to cool or quench

organic vapor streams through direct contact; water discarded from a control

device; and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels

containing organics. Gasholder seal water is not inprocess wastewater until it is

removed from the gasholder. This definition does apply to water which is used to

displace vinyl chloride from equipment before it is opened to the atmosphere in

accordance with Sec. 63.11955(a) or (b), but does not apply to water which is

used to wash out equipment after the equipment has already been opened to the

atmosphere in accordance with Sec. 63.11955(a) or (b).

C. Maintenance Wastewater Streams Should be Regulated Independently of

Inprocess Wastewater

The Working Group submits that it is not feasible to comply with an emission limitation

for maintenance wastewaters as it is not possible to capture and convey to a control device the

fugitive HAPs emitted from the wide variety of maintenance wastewater streams found at PVC

facilities. Accordingly, EPA should promulgate an operational standard for such streams as it

has done in prior rulemakings where similar conditions existed. For example, the Agency has

previously decided, because of the difficulty in determining the concentration and flow rate of

maintenance wastewaters within SOCMI units, along with the difficulty of enforcing such limits

under the HON, not to require that facilities manage HAP emissions from maintenance

wastewater streams via a controlled drain system or meet required performance standards for

treatment:

In the proposed rule, the EPA's original intent was to require good work practices

and reduce the burden of implementing the rule by deleting the requirement that

the owner or operator must determine if emissions from maintenance wastewater

have exceeded a designated de minimis level. Based on comments received, all

maintenance-related wastewater is now subject to the same requirements. The

EPA is eliminating the provisions which require that routine maintenance

wastewater be managed in a controlled drain system. The EPA is not including a

Group 1/Group 2 or de minimis level criteria for maintenance wastewater because

of the difficulty in determining the concentration and flow rate and the difficulty

of enforcement.120

Indeed, EPA is required to consider this option for the proposed PVC MACT rule as

well, as the Agency determined that including wastewater generated during maintenance

activities in the definition of wastewater was considered a beyond-the-floor option.121 As such,

the Working Group recommends that EPA promulgate a PVC MACT definition that addresses

120 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to the Negotiated

regulation for Equipment Leaks, 59 Fed. Reg 19,402, 19,424 (April 22, 1994).

121 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0098, Analysis of Beyond MACT Floor Controls for the

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production Source Category, at 3 (April 11, 2011).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

74

PVCPU–specific maintenance wastewater generating activities and requires PVC MACT

affected units to follow HON’s maintenance wastewater requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 63.105,

with a slight variation, as suggested below.

1. The Capture of Maintenance Wastewater Emissions is Infeasible and Thus

Warrants use of a Work Practice Standard

It is not feasible to capture fugitive HAP emissions from wastewater maintenance

activities such as draining water from a pump to a pad, then to a drain system or hydroblasting

equipment because of technical complications. Technical challenges include collecting high

pressure water that is blasting out of a heat exchanger on the second deck of a PVCPU or

capturing fugitive emissions from maintenance wastewater on a pad. Depending on the

maintenance activity, fugitive HAP emissions from maintenance wastewater streams vary

considerably in HAP concentration and flow rate.

Historically, data has not been collected from these streams because is it infeasible to do

so with any consistency. For example:

 Should a sample be grabbed just before equipment is drained, midway through the

activity, or just before the activity is completed?

 What is a representative sample?

 What test method should be used?

In addition, there are no known practical and effective methods for collecting and controlling

fugitive emissions from a wastewater stream, because, by nature, fugitive emissions are nonpoint emission sources. Building a tent around a maintenance activity to capture fugitive

emissions is impractical since maintenance events occur for all types of PVCPU equipment from

a 1⁄2 in. drains to a 6 foot long, 3 foot diameter heat exchangers in all locations in the Unit, from

ground level to 40 feet high.

As the Agency notes, the Part 61 VCM NESHAP does not regulate wastewaters

generated during maintenance activities. As a result, EPA concluded that facilities were not

managing this stream and any imposition of such requirements would be a beyond-the-floor

option. The Working Group supports this conclusion, in part. By nature of the Part 61 NESHAP

requirements, inprocess wastewaters from equipment in a PVCPU are managed to required

emission limits. Hence, the resulting maintenance wastewater generated from this same

equipment is inherently low in HAP concentration. Having received no maintenance wastewater

sampling data, the Agency went on to conclude that:

“no wastewater generated from maintenance activities met the 10 ppmw VC

treatment criteria. Therefore, no additional emission reductions or costs for this

option were estimated.”122

The Working Group disagrees with this conclusion. Based on general process knowledge,

maintenance wastewater streams can exceed the 10 ppm VCM concentration if the equipment is

in VCM service.

122 See Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0098, at 7.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

75

Given these considerations and EPA’s prior determination during the HON rulemaking

that similarly situated maintenance wastewater streams cannot be controlled and treated,

sufficient information exists to support the regulation of PVC MACT maintenance wastewaters

using work practices that properly manage fugitive HAP emissions. HON does not require that

maintenance wastewater be treated to a specific concentration, nor does HON require that

SOCMI facilities analyze, record, or report upon maintenance wastewater HAP concentrations

and flow rates. HON requires that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) be followed. This

precedent was followed by MON as well (see Table 7 to Part 63 Subpart FFFF).

Under the current VCM NESHAP, PVCPUs are required to treat certain inprocess

wastewater streams.123 SOPs are required to demonstrate compliance with the inprocess

wastewater emission limitation and treatment limits. Only if the affected equipment is in

compliance with the VCM NESHAP’s inprocess wastewater requirements can it be washed out

with maintenance wastewater. These required practices minimize emissions during a

maintenance wastewater activity. The Working Group suggests that EPA should carry

forward this same principle for maintenance wastewaters in a PVCPU.

2. Suggested Regulatory Text and Operational Standard

Below, the Working Group proposes definitions for the PVC MACT that would address

PVCPU–specific maintenance wastewater generating activities and requires PVC MACT

affected units to follow HON’s maintenance wastewater requirements at section 63.105, with a

slight variation to remove references to a Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Plan.

Suggested PVC MACT Maintenance Wastewater definition:

Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining of process

fluid from components in the PVCPU into an individual drain system prior to or

during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during

planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a

shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters

include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, hydroblasting PVCPU

equipment such as reactors, vessels, and heat exchangers, draining of low legs and

high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system, draining of

portions of the unit for repair, and water used to wash out equipment after the

equipment has already been opened to the atmosphere in accordance with the

section 63.11955(a) and (b) equipment opening provisions.

Suggested Work Practices:

1. All maintenance wastewater would drain to the process area; and then drain to a

collection area.

2. Documented procedures to manage the maintenance wastewater streams would be

required (see § 63.105).

123 40 CFR 61.65(b)(9).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

76

D. EPA Needs to Clarify Which Inprocess Wastewater Streams Require Control and

Treatment

1. Concentration Averaging Provisions are Needed

EPA’s proposed regulations setting out how facilities must demonstrate that a wastewater

stream is or is not subject to regulation under the PVC MACT are unclear, present

inconsistencies, and could lead to unwarranted enforcement. Specifically, there appear to be no

provisions under section 63.11965(b) for demonstrating compliance with inprocess wastewater

limitations using an average concentration; the control level determination would be based only

on a single grab sample. In contrast, other MACT standards require that facilities determine an

annual average concentration in part for all the reasons that the Act recognizes the importance of

variability. Compliance on the basis of a single grab sample is unwarranted and unprecedented.

A grab sample is one discrete sample where all of the material is collected at once and

can only represents the conditions at a particular time. PVCPU are complex operations in which

a single grab sample may not be indicative of compliance status. Grab sampling assumes

uniform wastewater chemistry over time. Allowing averaging of the wastewater chemistry, over

a specified period is an acceptable procedure when demonstrating compliance that represents the

operating conditions of a site over a specific period of time.

In addition, the proposed rule does not provide a means for facilities to determine by

annual flow rate whether or not a wastewater stream is an affected wastewater streams under the

proposed rule. If the rule is finalized as proposed, then a single grab sample at any flow rate that

exceeds 10 ppm VCM would require emission controls and treatment, as per section

63.11970(d)(4). EPA must revise the PVC MACT to allow for annual averaging of wastewater

concentrations.

2. Continuous Affirmation that Wastewater Streams do Not Need Treatment

Must be Eliminated or Severely Curtailed

Sections 63.11975(d) and (e) would require monthly testing of wastewater streams for

which PVCPUs initially demonstrated no treatment was required to reduce vinyl chloride and

TOHAP concentrations. Such a continuous demonstrate requirement is overly burdensome,

particularly as both testing and process knowledge are to be used to make the initial

demonstration. The Working Group submits that month-to-month testing of these streams

provides no added benefit and is unjustified.

Under the current vinyl chloride NESHAP, all existing PVCPUs made those initial

determinations long ago for the 10 ppm vinyl chloride concentration that is repeated again in this

proposed MACT requirement. The Agency’s proposal would suggest that PVCPUs had never

been subject to regulation, which is simply not the case.

The vinyl chloride NESHAP went into effect in the later 1970s and has been updated

periodically since that time. Long ago, PVCPUs tested and used engineering judgment to collect

and treat all inprocess wastewaters that were over 10 ppm vinyl chloride via steam stripping to

recover and reuse the vinyl chloride so collected. The Working Group asserts that the vinyl

chloride portion of these provisions has already been accomplished long ago. However, it may
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

77

be a good idea to do it ONE more time to make sure that nothing was overlooked and to update

process knowledge at the PVCPUs. Once the initial determinations have been made for vinyl

chloride pursuant to section 63.11970 for wastewater streams that must be treated AND those

that do not need to be treated, then no further periodic testing should be required. If EPA insists

upon periodic affirmation via section 63.11975, then the Working Group suggests that the

frequency should be no more than once every five (5) years.

For total organic HAP (TOHAP), since it is a new parameter, the Working Group

suggests that after initial demonstration for streams that need treatment, and those that do not

need treatment, reaffirmation should occur ONE time five years after MACT promulgation.

Since TOHAP testing is much more expensive than vinyl chloride testing via on-site Method

107, any subsequent reaffirmations should occur no more often than needed, triggered only by

PVC process modifications that could change the nature and amount of HAPs in any wastewater

stream.

For both vinyl chloride and TOHAP, PVCPUs will add consideration of changes in

wastewater stream(s) concentration and flow rate through existing management of change

(MOC) procedures, so that the impacts of process modifications are considered when process

changes are in the planning and implementation stages.

If EPA chooses to impose monthly monitoring for any wastewater parameter, then each

such parameter’s compliance status must be based on a rolling annual average. In such cases,

EPA should allow PVCPUs to collect monthly samples one year ahead of the compliance date so

that actual compliance determinations only occurs based on a rolling annual average, not

individual monthly sampling or similar short-term information.

E. EPA Needs to Clarify the Provisions for Determining HAP Concentration in

Wastewater Streams

Regarding demonstrating whether a HON Table 9 HAPs wastewater stream must be

controlled and treated, the Working Group submits the following points.

1. There are no provisions for establishing an average concentration; the

control level determination is based on a grab sample, as per proposed

63.11965(c)

Other MACT standards contain provisions for determining an annual average

concentration; the PVC MACT needs provisions for determining an annual concentration of

VCM in wastewater. See suggested PVC MACT language at Attachment 14.

2. The provisions for establishing the annual average flow rate need

adjustment flexibility at section 63.11965(d)

Other MACT standards contain flexible provisions; the PVC MACT needs provisions for

determining affected wastewater streams. See suggested PVC MACT language at Attachment

14.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

78

3. The provisions for establishing the annual average flow rate at section

63.11965(d) need clarification

At the POG, each wastewater stream must be measured to determine the VCM

concentration before the stream is exposed to the atmosphere, stored, combined with any other

liquid stream, treated (e.g., stripping, distillation, thin film evaporating), or discharged to a

wastewater treatment plant.

If the VCM in the water stream is equal to or greater than 10 ppm at ANY FLOW RATE:

The wastewater must be conveyed directly (i.e., it cannot be stored) to a treatment process (e.g.,

WW Stripper) that will reduce the VCM to less than 0.11 ppm VCM.

Within the proposed PVC MACT, there are no averaging provisions for this VCM

concentration, which is unlike other CAA wastewater-related requirements which have annual

average concentration determination provisions (see HON § 63.144(b) and BWON § 61.355(c)).

In addition, there is no annual average flow rate for determining whether or not a VCM

containing wastewater stream must be controlled.

The PVC MACT should have the same threshold of 10 liters per minute as allowed for

the HON Table 9 TOHAP determination and allow an annual average concentration.

F. Continuous Compliance Requirements for Wastewater Not Requiring Treatment

are Excessive

EPA would require facilities that have identified wastewater streams that do not require

further treatment to comply with monthly sampling and analysis, along with testing plans,

recordkeeping and reporting for these streams. These requirements are unreasonable for a

variety of reasons including:

1. Initial sampling and measurement are one possible option, but should not be the only

option.

 The proposed rule references the HON for wastewater streams containing HAP.

However, the HON does not require sampling. The HON allows for the use of

sampling, bench scale data, and/or process knowledge to determine concentration

and flow rate of a wastewater stream.124 There is no need to require expensive

testing if, for example, process knowledge already provides sufficient information

to make a valid determination regarding HAP content.

 To require testing is inconsistent with other Part 63 NESHAPs, which allow other

mechanisms (e.g., process knowledge).

2. EPA should not require monthly sampling to verify that wastewater streams that are

below the control requirements remain below these levels.

 The flow rate and HAP concentration of a wastewater stream will usually vary

somewhat with process conditions. As a result, the annual average flow rate

and concentration – not the momentary flow rate and concentration during a

124 40 C.F.R. § 63.144(b).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

79

random sampling event – should be the basis for compliance. In that light, a

monthly sample does not necessarily shed any meaningful light.

 By establishing an annual average flow rate and concentration (as in the

HON), it becomes possible to account for normal process variation and thus,

sampling would not be necessary.

 Provisions are proposed in the rule to address changes to a process that could

result in a change in wastewater flow rate and/or concentration of a given

stream. Those provisions should adequately address EPA’s concerns.

 To require monthly sampling is inconsistent with other Part 63 NESHAPs.

3. Requiring the submittal of a test plan for initial testing and subsequent monthly

sampling is unreasonable.

 This is inconsistent with other Part 63 NESHAPS. Typically, MACT

standards impose a performance requirement. That is, the standards require

affected sources to generate valid data. The potential for civil penalties

provides an ample incentive to make sure the data are valid. Wisely, the other

MACT standards recognize that there is no need to make each facility incur

the cost and delay of developing and submitting a formal test plan, and then

getting an agency to approve the plan, before conducting sampling.

 As the technical details in these and other industry comments should indicate,

the PVC industry knows sampling. Our facilities conduct sampling all the

time, whether under regulatory programs or otherwise. There is nothing

“special” about compliance sampling that would uniquely require review and

approval of a test plan.

 This creates an unnecessary record-keeping and reporting burden, particularly

with monthly sampling. The burden would also fall heavily on EPA (or

delegated state agencies) to review and approve the test plans in a timely

manner.

The Working Group suggests that the wastewater provisions should be revised to remove

the initial and monthly sampling and testing requirements for wastewater streams specified in 40

CFR 63.11965 and 63.11970 and Table 10 of the proposed rule. In addition, the sample test plan

requirements should also be removed from the rule.

G. EPA Must Provide Exemptions for Certain Safety-Related Streams

There are no standard exemptions for emission sources with little to no chance of

emitting HAPs.125 Examples include the following, which are currently allowed under HON at

63.100(f):

125 76 Fed. Reg. 29,563 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11870(a)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

80

This subpart does not require emission points that are listed in paragraphs (f)(1)

through (f)(11) of this section to comply with the provisions of subpart A of this

part.

(1) Equipment that is located within a chemical manufacturing process unit

that is subject to this subpart but the equipment does not contain organic

hazardous air pollutants.

(2) Stormwater from segregated sewers;

(3) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated sewers;

(4) Spills;

(5) Water from safety showers;

(6) Water from testing of deluge systems;

(7) Water from testing of firefighting systems....

The Working Group is concerned that EPA did not propose exemptions from the

wastewater requirements for safety-related activities at PVCPUs. Certain events may occur at a

PVCPU that require the release and subsequent discharge of water, such as during a fire, testing

of fire deluge systems, and use of eye wash stations and safety showers. These activities have

little to no chance of emitting HAPs, yet they would not be exempt from wastewater compliance

obligations under the proposed PVC MACT.

In the absence of such exemptions, a very real danger exists that facility employees will

be confused or hesitant because of a compliance dilemma at the worst possible time. In an

emergency, when there is a need for safety showers for relief, or the need to activate the fire

deluge system, Working Group members do not want anything to distract employees during an

emergency or cause them to stop and deliberate on anything other than fighting the emergency.

Determining whether the use of particular safety water system falls under the PVC MACT

wastewater provisions certainly would qualify as a concern, and so EPA must provide

exemptions for safety-related waters.

Regarding stormwater, EPA has historically not regulated this water stream under the

CAA (see BWON, HON, MON, etc.). EPA should continue exempting stormwater.

H. Wastewater Test Methods and Test Plan

At section 63.11980(a), EPA proposes procedures and testing methods for determining

vinyl chloride and TOHAPs in wastewater that would be required in the site-specific test plan.

Several sections of the MACT general conditions are cited in section 63.11980(a)(2), but their

relevance is unclear. For example, section 63.7(c)(3) is entitled “Approval of site-specific test

plan” and only addresses EPA disapproval of site-specific test plans, including the provision that

EPA failure to approve a test plan does not relieve the owner or operator from legal

responsibility for compliance. Section 63.7(e)(2)(i) is also cited, which subparagraph appears to

only address EPA approval of minor changes to a test method.

1. Site-specific Test Plans Should not Need Prior EPA Approval

The Working Group believes that site-specific plans for testing wastewater are not

complex, and it would better serve the industry and EPA if prior approval by EPA is eliminated

from the PVC MACT rule. The site-specific test plan for wastewater testing will be prepared by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

81

PVCPUs, using methods outlined below, and will be available for inspection by EPA and State

agencies, as may be requested. Eliminating the wastewater site-specific test plan formal

approval process will facilitate implementation of the PVC MACT in a timely and

uncomplicated fashion. EPA always has the ability to review test plans after implementation,

and can do so easily in a small sized industrial category like PVC and Copolymers Production.

The proposed rule at (a)(2) also cites to sections 63.8(d) and (e) as required provisions for

submitting the test plan for approval, but these citations are specifically for continuous

monitoring systems (“CMS”) and appear to be inapplicable for a site-specific wastewater test

plan. The Working Group requests elimination of the provisions related to the submission of the

site-specific wastewater test plan for approval.

2. Wastewater Monitoring Methods need to be Supplemented and Adjusted

Sections 63.11980(a)(2) through (a)(4) would require the use of specified analytical

methods for determining the concentration of vinyl chloride and TOHAP in wastewater. EPA

only lists SW-846 Method 8260B, Method 305, Sections 6.0 and 7.0 (for methanol only) and

EPA Method 107, but other SW-846 methods need to be added to ensure analysis of all potential

PVC process-related HAPs.

It is clear from the proposed MACT rule that EPA assumes the use of the Table 9,

subpart G HAP list for identifying TOHAP for wastewater. This seems logical, as all PVC

process-related HAPs are included in Table 9, except for formaldehyde. We recommend that

formaldehyde be added to the PVC process HAP list to be analyzed as part of TOHAP for both

stripped resin and wastewater, as it was detected and reported by several PVCPUs during the

section 114 30-day testing that took place in late 2009, and early 2010. Attachment 10 includes

a more detailed explanation supporting the industry recommended PVC process HAP list for

both stripped resin and wastewater, which is a subset of subpart G, Table 9, but with the addition

of other PVC process-related HAPs such as formaldehyde. Several methods are required to

make sure that all potential HAPs are included for wastewater HAP reporting purposes, as

follows:

1) Method 8260B for volatile organic compounds;

2) Method 8270C for semi-volatile compounds;

3) Method 8315A for aldehydes, specifically acetaldehyde and formaldehyde;

4) Method 8015C for alcohols, specifically methanol; and

5) EPA Method 107 for VCM

Therefore, all five (5) of these methods should be listed in subparagraph (a)(2).

Note that the Working Group strongly recommends replacement of Method 305 with

SW-846 Method 8015. Method 8015 was used by PVC facilities to analyze for methanol in

stripped resin during the EPA 114 requested 30-day test program. Method 8015 was also used to

analyze the wastewater fraction of the slurry stripper discharge, and was used by at least one

PVC plant for WW Stripper analyses. Method 305 is really a combination of EPA Method 25D,

along with a requirement to develop an analytical method for detection and speciation of the
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

82

HAPs that may be present. This is a very non-specific method development requirement that is,

frankly, outdated and not needed, because EPA Method 8015 is available for use.

3. Holding Times Should not be Mandated at 24-Hours Maximum

It appears that through the operation of section 63.11980(a)(2)(i), EPA would force the

adoption of a section of Method 107 that requires analysis of samples for TOHAPs within 24

hours of collection. This section is unnecessary and onerous for PVCPUs, as only Method 107

and perhaps Method 8260B have ever been developed for on-site monitoring at PVCPUs. SW846, Organic Analytes, Section 4.1 indicates that unpreserved VOA samples can be held for up

to 7 days before analysis, although it is recommended that VOA samples be run as soon as

possible after receipt by the laboratory. Holding time studies indicate that key HAPs (VCM and

methanol) in stripped resin and PVC process wastewater can be held for up to seven days

without significant loss. The Working Group notes that EPA has added a separate provision that

requires PVCPUs to minimize the loss of HAP and maintain sample integrity.

The Working Group believes that this requirement is met by either meeting the holding

times established in the specific methods to be used, or by the guidance in SW-846, or by HAP

specific holding time studies that demonstrate HAP concentration stability. Indeed, the arbitrary

inclusion of the 24-hour holding time in Method 107 will require that each PVCPU purchase

equipment and hire skilled laboratory staff to set up Methods 8260, 8270, 8315, and 8015. Since

these methods require purchase of gas chromatographs, mass spectrometer detectors, and a liquid

chromatograph (for Method 8315), as well as substantial associated extraction equipment, the

capital cost per PVCPU will be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and would likely include the

need for construction of additional laboratory space. The Working Group strongly recommends

that arbitrary subparagraph (a)(2)(i) be removed from the PVC MACT rule. Each PVCPU will

determine how best to minimize the loss of HAP and maintain sample integrity, and determine

what appropriate sample preservation and holding times are required for VCM and TOHAP in

wastewater.

4. Existing Method Modifications Must Continue to be Authorized

At section 63.11980(a)(3), EPA appropriately proposes to identify Method 107 as the

method for analyzing VCM in wastewater. The rule language is confusing, however, as it calls

for using only Section 8.0 of Method 107, rather than the complete method. This subparagraph

needs to be revised to include the complete Method 107, and needs to acknowledge that over the

past 30 years, PVCPUs may have obtained EPA permission to make minor modifications to the

method for both wastewater and stripped resin testing. These historical, approved minor

modifications must be preserved in the final rule. The Working Group suggests the following

language for this subparagraph:

(3) For measuring vinyl chloride, you must use Method 107 at 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

hereby incorporated into Part 63 as an Appendix. Existing EPA approved

modifications to Method 107, obtained for use at PVCPUs, continue to be

authorized for analysis of vinyl chloride in stripped resin and wastewater.

Note that since EPA plans to fully supersede Part 61 with the new MACT for PVC and

copolymers, Method 107 (and other relevant parts of Part 61) will need to be moved into Part 63.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

83

5. TOHAP Calculation Must be Modified

Section 63.11980(b) sets forth EPA’s proposed method for calculating TOHAP

concentration. The Working Group believes that a revision to the footnote for Ci is needed as

follows:

Current:

Ci = Concentration of each individually identified HAP that is listed in Table 9 to

subpart G of this part, in ppmw.

Revised:

Ci = Concentration of each individually identified HAP, in ppmw, where a value

of zero should be used for any HAP concentration that is below the detection

limit.

This revision is necessary, because Table 9 does not include formaldehyde, and because many

PVC process specific HAPs, included in Table 9, may not be present in wastewater. Therefore,

to avoid results being dominated by non-detect values, zero is appropriate for non-detects in the

summation.

I. Miscellaneous Wastewater Clarifications Requested

1. Determiniation of the annual average flow rate using knowlegede of the

wastewater

The Working Group requests that EPA confirm the Working Group’s understanding that

language at section 63.11965(d) means the following:

Equations:

Under section 63.11965(d)(1), the total annual wastewater volume of all streams within

the PVCPU must be under 1.4 million gallons over a designated 12-month period and have a

total annual HAP concentration under 1,000 ppmw in order to be exempt from control and

treatment requirements.

If, for example, within a 12-month period, a PVCPU generated a 1,500 ppm HAP

inprocess wastewater stream that flowed at 100 l/min for 60 min, the stream would not be subject

to control and treatment since the annual average flow rate is less than 1,600 gal/yr, which is less

than 1.4M gal/yr.

This exercise would be repeated for other wastewater streams that are generated or are

anticipated to be generated over a year, and then totaled for the Unit. As long as the Unit has

generated less than 1.4 M gallons of low flow rate streams in a year, these low flow rate streams

do not require control and treatment.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

84

2. Discrepancies at Section 63.11975(e)(3)

According to proposed section 63.11975(e)(3):

If any monthly performance test specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this

section shows that the concentration of total HAP is greater than or equal

to 1000 parts per million by weight and the annual average flow rate

measured in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is greater than or equal to 10

liters per minute, then you must use a treatment process to reduce the vinyl

chloride concentration as specified in section 63.11965(c) and you must

demonstrate compliance as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

The beginning of section 63.11975(e)(3) addresses the concentration of total HAP.

However, the treatment process focuses on reducing the vinyl chloride concentration. We

propose to change the language to “then you must use a treatment process to reduce the total

HAP concentration as specified in....”

3. Discrepancies at Section 63.11965(b)(1)

In section 63.11965(b)(1), the statement “Route wastewater streams through hard piping

from the point of generation directly to the treatment process....” includes the word ‘directly,’

which could be misinterpreted to exclude intermediate vessels such as a wastewater stripped feed

tank. Notwithstanding the Working Group’s strong recommendation to remove the concept of

POG from the rule, existing NESHAP > 10 ppm wastewater collection systems can have

collection vessels such that wastewater may not go ‘directly’ to the treatment process, and such

intermediate vessels are either pressure vessels or are vented to the closed vent system. Please

remove the word ‘directly’ in any wastewater language that may remain in the final MACT rule.

4. Verification that Downstream Wastewater Treatment Units are NOT part

of the PVCPU

The definition of PVCPU at page 29,598 of the proposed rule publication would include

the term “wastewater treatment systems.”126 The Working Group requests EPA clarification that

downstream wastewater treatment systems that are not being used to meet emission limits set

forth in the PVC MACT: (1) are NOT part of the PVCPU; and (2) are not subject to PVC MACT

regulations. Many of these downstream units are activated sludge biotreaters under the

jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, and in many cases are treating residual wastewaters from

several different manufacturing processes that are normally not PVCPUs.

VII. Storage Vessels Containing Gases and Solid Materials Should not be Included in the

Proposed Definition

EPA has proposed an unprecedented CAA definition for storage vessel, which includes

gaseous and solid materials, along with liquids:

“Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel) that is part of an

affected source and is used to store a gaseous, liquid, or solid feedstock, byproduct, or

product that contain organic HAP. Storage vessel does not include:

126 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

85

(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars,

barges, or ships;

(2) Process tanks;

(3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 10,040 gallons;

(4) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP only as impurities;

(5) Bottoms receiver tanks;

(6) Surge control vessels; and

(7) Wastewater storage tanks. Wastewater storage tanks are covered under the

wastewater provisions.”

EPA’s proposed definition of storage vessel is unprecedented when compared to the storage

vessel (or “storage tank”) definitions of many MACT Standards, including Organic Liquids

Distribution MACT, HON, MON and NSPS Kb. Without explanation, EPA has proposed to

regulate vessels that store solid and gaseous materials, along with liquids.

Historically, through various rulemaking efforts and settlement agreements, EPA has

carefully set out its rationale and basis for regulating storage vessels (or storage tanks) that

contain liquids.127 In May 2000, the Agency’s attempt at expanding the scope of the “storage

vessel” definition was challenged by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), and as

a result, the Agency subsequently amended its NSPS Kb storage vessel requirements to clarify

that certain drums and vessels are not “storage vessels.”128

Through this proposed PVC MACT, EPA once again seeks to expand the scope of what

constitutes a storage vessel. Critically, the Agency offers no rationale to support this expansion,

which would now require emission controls on the storage of gaseous and solid materials after a

long regulatory history of controlling emissions only from liquid storage vessels. In fact, the rule

preamble contradicts the Agency’s efforts where solids are concerned:

Handling a solid final product is unlikely to emit HAP, and the stripped resins

limit already minimizes the HAP content of the final product.129

As for “gaseous” storage vessels, the Working Group is unaware of any storage vessels in the

PVC industry that only store gases. Accordingly, the Work Group disagrees with the Agency’s

seemingly arbitrary attempt to expand the “storage vessel” definition to include gaseous and

solid feedstock, byproduct, or product which contain organic HAP.

127 See e.g., Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels

(Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) Constructed After July 23, 1984, 49 Fed. Reg. 29,698 (July 23,1984).

128 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including

Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July

23, 1984, 68 Fed. Reg. 59,328 (October 15, 2003).

129 76 Fed. Reg. 29,544.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

86

A. Other MACT Standards, such as HON, MON, OLD and Ethylene MACT all

exempt: “Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and

without emissions to the atmosphere”

It is important to note that other MACTs contradict the Agency’s attempt to regulate

“pressure vessels” as “storage vessels.” The Agency proposes to define a “pressure vessel” as:

...a vessel that is used to store liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the

atmosphere as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure

vessel during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.130

Yet the Agency proposes to regulate PVC spheres under section 63.11910 (c) by requiring

process vent controls, potential leak interface inspections, and venting prohibitions.131 Once

again, EPA offers no rationale or explanation as to why the Agency seeks to regulate pressure

vessels.

Under the HON, OLD MACT, Petroleum Refinery MACT, Ethylene MACT and MON,

EPA has exempted pressure vessels from the definition of storage vessel because pressure

vessels are designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kPa (29.72 psia) and without emissions to the

atmosphere. The Working Group disagrees with this amendment to the longstanding “storage

vessel” definition.

The Agency also proposes to require that “all potential leak interfaces” on pressure

vessels be monitored annually for leaks using Method 21. Any leak that is detected would

constitute a violation of the Act, and must be reported to the Administrator within 10 days of

detection. As currently worded, this requirement simply is excessive. EPA provides no

definition or guidance as to what constitutes “all potential leak interfaces.” In the context of a

sphere, for example, this could mean the entire surface of the process vessel along with each

weld. In addition, the Agency fails to provide any allowances for postponing an inspection if

unsafe conditions exist. These requirements are further exacerbated by the requirement to notify

the Agency at least 30 days in advance every time a leak inspection is to take place.

The Working Group also is concerned by EPA’s classification of a “leak” from pressure

vessel closure devices as a violation of the rule.132 The Agency offers no explanation for why it

singled out leaks from this one specific source as a violation of the rule in contrast to a leak from

a valve, connector, pump, agitator, pressure relief device, etc. The Working Group believes that

leaks from closure devices should be subject to the same Leak Detection and Repair (“LDAR”)

requirements as other process components at the source.

Indeed, courts have recognized that “...fugitive, or unintended releases of VC will

occur.”133 Fugitive emissions are such that it is not possible to predict their occurence or

location, or measure their quantity. As such, it is appropriate for EPA to prescribe a work

130 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005.

131 76 Fed. Reg. 29,566.

132 76 Fed. Reg. 29,566 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11910).

133 U. S. v. Conoco, No. 83-2518, slip op. at 7 (W.D. La. June 1, 1984), enclosed as Attachment 15.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

87

practice standard to control these emissions. When a work practice standard is in place, it is not

appropriate to consider a fugitive emission to be a violation of an emission limit provided the

work practice standard was complied with. As the court in U.S. v. Conoco held, “[s]uch

episodic, pre-exhaust-phase discharges are not illegal provided that certain work-practice

standards are complied with to minimize such occurrences.”134 Certainly, the use of area

monitoring systems for vinyl chloride and subsequent application of LDAR procedures

constitute acceptable work-practice standards for minimizing equipment leaks. The Working

Group requests that EPA delete section 63.11910(c)(4). EPA also should clarify the required

monitoring frequencies if the Agency retains section 63.11910(c)(3).

B. Define the term: Byproduct:

The term “By-product,” as used in the proposed PVC MACT definition of Storage

Vessel, is not defined. The Working Group suggests that the HON definition is an acceptable

definition:

By-product means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during the

production of another chemical.

C. Vapor balancing should be an allowed method of control for compliance with the

storage tanks provisions:

Vapor balancing is a proven control technology that EPA has allowed as a control option

for storage tanks in many other MACT rules; however, EPA has not included a provision to

allow for vapor balancing in the proposed PVC MACT rule. As examples, the HON (which is

also referenced by many other Part 63 MACT Standards) and the MON both require 95% control

for existing storage vessels (similar to the proposed requirements in Table 4 of the PVC MACT)

and both of these rules allow for vapor balancing to meet the control requirements for storage

vessels. Accordingly, a PVCPU should be allowed to use the same control mechanism. As such,

the Work Group suggests the language below, which is based on the provisions at 40 C.F.R. §

63.246(a)(4):

(a) Storage tanks. For each storage tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank

capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart,

items 1 through 5, you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4)

of this section. For each storage tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank

capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart,

item 6, you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.

(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and comply with

the applicable requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for meeting

emission limits, except substitute the term “storage tank” at each occurrence of

the term ``storage vessel'' in subpart SS.

(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as specified in 40

CFR part 63, subpart SS.

134 Id.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

88

(3) Comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2).

(4) Use a vapor balancing system that complies with the requirements specified in

paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vii) of this section and with the recordkeeping

requirements specified in Sec. 63.2390(e).

(i) The vapor balancing system must be designed and operated to route organic

HAP vapors displaced from loading of the storage tank to the transport vehicle

from which the storage tank is filled.

(ii) Transport vehicles must have a current certification in accordance with the

United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) pressure test

requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for cargo tanks and 49 CFR 173.31 for tank

cars.

(iii) Organic liquids must only be unloaded from cargo tanks or tank cars when

vapor collection systems are connected to the storage tank's vapor collection

system.

VIII. Heat Exchange Systems

To reduce VOC emissions in heat exchange systems, EPA proposes to establish work

practice standards, by way of a LDAR program. The Agency’s MACT floor analysis of VOCs

in heat exchange systems are based on data submitted by the Working Group and other industry

members for the section 114 Request.135 The MACT floor was determined for the leak action

level in the cooling water and monitoring frequency for both new and existing sources.

Work practice standards are being proposed because applying a measurement

methodology is not technologically feasible due to the number of openings and possible

emissions points in these systems.136 The Agency is also proposing different sampling locations

for once-through and closed loop systems.

EPA does not believe that it is technically feasible to require a lower leak action level for

cooling water.137 The Agency considered a beyond-the-floor option equivalent to the MACT

floor for new sources at a leak action level of 25 ppbw. Given that the results of the analysis

showed that 5.78 tons per year of total VOC would be reduced for an annual cost of $175,630,

resulting in a cost of $30,386 per ton of VOC reduced, EPA determined that it was not

appropriate to impose such beyond-the-floor limits considering the cost and emission reductions

of this option. The Agency requests comments on these proposed requirements.

A. Recycled and Other Make-Up Water Should Not be Regulated as Leaks

In some instances, recycled water from PVC unit operations and non-PVC MACT

affected sources may be used as make-up water for the cooling tower. Any measurable organics

from these streams may significantly contribute to a value greater than the leak action level.

135 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 39.

136 76 Fed. Reg. 29,540.

137 76 Fed. Reg. 29,549; see also Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0098, at 4-5.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

89

Nevertheless, these waters are not considered to be leaks, nor are they repairable by the methods

detailed in the rule. For example, in certain locations, like New Jersey, recycling of water is a

necessity simply because make-up water sources are not available.

Additionally, the treatment of cooling tower water using biocides and other additives can

also cause elevated VOC readings. The extremely low leak action levels proposed by EPA will

present a problem during these normal operations - pitting the need for essential cooling water

treatment against rule compliance. EPA should consider alternatives to testing the water return

line to the cooling tower. For instance, a site could establish a baseline level and establish a leak

action level based on the difference in VOC concentration between the inlet and outlet to the

cooling tower.

B. The Proposed Rule Should Provide Flexibility for Those Circumstances When

Neither the Modified El Paso Method nor the 8021B Method can be Used

Working Group members are concerned about their ability to monitor cooling tower

water in those circumstances where the target list contains a compound(s) that has a response

factor > 2.0 when using the Modified El Paso Method. In this regard, the TCEQ Sampling

Procedures manual discusses the use of the El Paso Method in Chapter 2.0, Sensitivity. It states

that “[t]he total VOC procedure by FID should not be used on sources for which any potential

targeted VOC has a response factor multiplier greater than 2 relative to methane.” The following

compounds, which the Working Group has identified in Attachment 10, do not have published

response factors for the TVA1000B FID (flame ionization detector) analyzer (the most popular

instrument for use with the Modified El Paso Method):138

1,1 Dichloroethane

1,2 Dichloroethane

Chloroethane

Chloromethane

Cumene

1,1 Dichloroethene

Isooctane

Acetaldehyde

Acetophenone

Bis (2-EH) phthalate

Of the compounds with listed response factors, three of them have response factors >2.0 at their

lowest challenge concentration of 10 ppm. They are as follows:

Chloroform, 2.229 @ 10 ppm

Formaldehyde, 7.286 @ 10 ppm

Methanol, 3.815 @ 10 ppm

Another concern is that the Attachment 10 list of detected HAPs contains a compound

that Method 8021B is not suitable to test. Specifically, 8021B is suitable for the compounds

listed in the table shown in Section 1.0 “Scope and Application” and in the table in section 1.7 of

the Method. The first table in 8021B is missing the following compounds, which we have

identified below:

Vinyl acetate (copolymer resins)

Iso-octane

Methanol

Acetophenone

138 See Thermo Environmental Instruments Inc., TVA-1000 Response Factors, available at:

http://www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Various/156File_13448.pdf.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

90

Acetaldehyde

Formaldehyde

Bis (2-EH) phthalate

As a result of these potential monitoring difficulties using either of the two prescribed

methods, the Working Group submits that EPA should allow the use of Method 107 for vinyl

chloride measurement of the cooling tower water. First, vinyl chloride is the primary constituent

of concern and one of the few HAPs most likely to be present most of the time. Second, the

results from the tests are not to be used for compliance determination but rather as an action

level. In contrast, the laboratory results for 8021B tests can take a week before being made

available.

More importantly, Working Group members contacted several environmental labs to

confirm their ability to run Method 8021B, but were informed that the laboratories no longer

have the equipment or personnel capable of performing this method. See Attachment 16. The

Working Group would also note that Method 8021B is not incorporated by reference in section

63.14 as is the Modified El Paso Method. Since the environmental labs have replaced the use of

8021B with 8260B, the Working Group requests EPA to also provide 8260B as a fourth test

method option in the rule.

C. Heat Exchange System Limits are Unprecedented and Unwarranted

The proposed heat exchange system limitations for existing sources are the most stringent

of any heat exchange system requirements promulgated by EPA to date. In contrast, the heat

exchange system provisions for petroleum refineries at 40 C.F.R. § 63.654 are a 6.2 ppmv leak

threshold for existing sources, a 3.1 ppmv leak threshold for new sources, and a 62 ppmv delay

of repair action level, based on Modified El Paso Method test results. The HON at section

63.104(b)(6) has a 1 ppm limit in the cooling water and quarterly monitoring. Likewise, the

MACTs for Group IV Polymers and Resins and Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins at

sections 63.1328 and 63.1409 essentially refer to the HON for their requirements.

The Working Group opposes the proposed requirements for new sources. These appear

to have been derived from the most frequent sampling timeframes AND the lowest leak action

levels obtained from different cooling towers. This approach is contrary to the Act’s mandate

that EPA develop limits for new sources from the one best “existing source.” It appears that

EPA cherry picked the most stringent parameter from each of the two categories (leak action

level and sampling frequency). At the lower leak action level of 2.3 ppmv, once a week

sampling is more appropriate, as documented by EPA in the ERG Technical Memorandum dated

April 11, 2011, Table 4-35, Summary of Total VOC/NMHC Concentrations in Cooling Water.

D. Additional Exemption for Heat Exchangers is Needed

EPA has proposed to exempt all heat exchangers within the heat exchange system that

operate with minimum pressure on the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the

maximum pressure on the process side.139 The Working Group supports this exemption, but

requests that EPA also provide two exemptions similar to those in Subpart CC at section

139 76 Fed. Reg. 29,568 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11920).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

91

63.654(b)(1)(ii) dealing with heat exchangers that employ an intervening cooling fluid

containing less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP between the process and the cooling water,

and in section 63.654(b)(2) dealing with heat exchange systems that cool process fluids that

contain less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP to make this proposed rule consistent with

other MACT standards.

E. Other Heat Exchange System Comments

The Working Group is not aware of any once-through cooling water systems and is

unable to provide meaningful comments on these systems. At proposed 40 C.F.R. §

63.11920(h)(4)(ii), EPA would require facilities to estimate potential emission from leaking heat

exchange systems. One of the formulas provided under this subsection is as follows:

(ii) Calculate the emissions for the leaking heat exchange system by multiplying the

volatile organic compounds concentration in the cooling water, parts per billion by

weight, by the flow rate of the cooling water at the selected monitoring location and by

the expected duration of the delay. The flow rate may be based on direct measurement,

pump curves, heat balance calculations, or other engineering methods.

EPA should provide the appropriate conversion factors for using this formula.

IX. Gasholder Emission and Control Information

As requested by EPA, the Working Group is providing comments on gasholders.140 The

Working Group agrees with EPA that gasholders can be part of a VCM recovery system.141 The

equipment is used to collect low-pressure VCM gas emitted from various sources in a PVCPU.

The gases within the gasholder are then vented to the recovery system for return back to the

process. A gasholder can also serve as a surge control vessel for managing vents to the primary

control device system (thermal oxidizer system) since the system must receive consistent flow

rates and volumes of combustibles for proper operation. Gasholders also can be used to prevent

pressure relief valve discharges to the atmosphere, which are currently prohibited except for

emergencies.142

Gasholders are the sole technology suitable for use in modern low-pressure VCM

handling systems within PVCPUs. A gasholder is a cylindrical, variable-volume vessel that

consists of a floating bell in a tank filled with water. The water provides a seal between the

enclosed process gas and ambient air. Gasholders operate at low pressure, typically 12-in H2O,

and provide a safe, efficient method to collect gaseous streams containing HAPs for return back

to the process or venting to a control device. By allowing such gaseous process streams to

operate at low pressure, efficiency of control devices, such as slurry and wastewater strippers, is

optimized thereby reducing HAP emissions from PVCPUs. Additionally, equipment and

connector leaks (“fugitive emissions”) due to low-pressure are minimized. Pressure relief

devices from piping and low-volume vessels containing HAPs are typically routed to a gasholder

140 76 Fed. Reg. 29,549.

141 76 Fed. Reg. 29,531.

142 See 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(a).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

92

instead of directly to the atmosphere, thereby eliminating emissions to actuation of such safety

devices. Fugitive emissions from a gasholder come from the seal water, which has minimal

VCM emissions due to the low saturation point of VCM in water. There are two sources:

1. Fugitive emissions from the water seal that is exposed to atmosphere; and

2. Fugitive emissions from the wet bell wall.

Measuring fugitive emission levels from the water seal and wall is technologically

infeasible. There is no reliable methodology for measuring the fugitive emissions coming

exclusively from the exposed gasholder water. Attempting to isolate and sample fugitive

emissions related to the gasholders from other ambient fugitive emissions in a PVCPU is not

possible.

Therefore, since it is infeasible to develop a numerical limit for this emission source, the

PVC MACT should specify gasholder equipment requirements and procedural requirements.

Below, the Working Group suggests specific equipment requirements along with procedure

requirements. Both should be an allowable substitute for an emission limitation, since measuring

emission levels from a gasholder is technologically impracticable.

Please note that in 76 Fed. Reg. 29,549, EPA incorrectly states that five gasholders are

currently in use; there are actually 15 gasholders with water seals in use at 7 locations. This

miscount may be due to uncertainty in how to address gasholders during EPA’s PVC MACT

section114 Request for information. The section 114 Request Survey spreadsheets did not have

a classification for gasholders within the PVC MACT section 114 Request “Pull down” menus.

A. PVC MACT Gasholder Definition

The Working Group reviewed the various CAA liquid storage related definitions and

associated requirements and determined that gasholders meet the proposed PVC MACT

definition of “Surge control vessel,” not “Fixed roof" storage vessel, or “Floating roof” storage

vessel, or “Process tank.” A brief analysis follows below.

Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and intermediate vessels.

Surge control vessels are used within an affected source when in-process storage,

mixing, or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to introduce material

into continuous operations.143

Gasholders are used as intermediate vessels to contain and store VCM gases from various

sources so that the gases can be fed to the primary control device and/or back to the process

through the recovery system. Gasholders are used within PVCPUs for in-process storage,

mixing, and/or management of flow rates or volumes in order to introduce material into

continuous operations (e.g., compressors and thermal oxidizers).

143 76 Fed. Reg. 29,599 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

93

Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel) that is part of an

affected source and is used to store a gaseous, liquid, or solid feedstock,

byproduct, or product that contains organic HAP...144

A gasholder is not a storage vessel because it is not used to store feedstock, byproduct or final

product.

Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with a roof that is mounted (i.e.,

permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move with fluctuations

in stored liquid level.145

A gasholder is not a fixed roof storage vessel because it does not have a roof that is mounted on

the tank wall which does not fluctuate with the stored liquid level.

Floating roof means a roof that floats on the surface of the liquid in a storage

vessel. A floating roof substantially covers the stored liquid surface (but is not

necessarily in contact with the entire surface), and is comprised of a deck, a rim

seal, and miscellaneous deck fittings. External floating roof means a floating roof

located in a storage vessel without a fixed roof. Internal floating roof means a

floating roof located in a storage vessel with a fixed roof. For the purposes of this

subpart, an external floating roof located in a storage vessel to which a fixed roof

has been added is considered to be an internal floating roof.146

A gasholder is not a floating roof tank because it does not have a roof that floats on the surface of

the liquid which is comprised of a deck, a rim seal, and miscellaneous deck fittings.

Process tank means a tank or other vessel (e.g., pressure vessel) that is used

within an affected source to both: (1) Collect material discharged from a

feedstock storage vessel, process tank, or other PVCPU process component, and

(2) discharge the material to another process tank, process component, byproduct

storage vessel, or product storage vessel.147

A gasholder is not a tank that is used to collect material discharged from a feedstock storage

vessel, process tank, or other PVCPU process component, and then discharge that material to

another process tank, process component, byproduct storage vessel, or product storage vessel.

Since a gasholder best fits the PVC MACT definition of “surge control vessel,” the

Working Group recommends that they be defined as such within section 63.12005:

Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating in a vessel

filled with water. The bell rises and lowers as low-pressure gases enter and leave

the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal between the enclosed gas

within the floating bell and the ambient air.

144 76 Fed. Reg. 29,599 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

145 76 Fed. Reg. 29,597 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

146 40 C.F.R. § 63.1061.

147 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

94

B. Gasholder Equipment Controls

Traditional LDAR programs like the Control Level 2 Standards from Subpart UU

proposed by EPA to control equipment leaks under the PVC MACT are not effective for

controlling gasholder emissions because there is no “repair” that would minimize or eliminate

the emissions.

As per EPA’s PVC MACT Beyond-the-Floor memorandum regarding PVC MACT

LDAR, the MACT floor level of control is generally equivalent to the hazardous organic national

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HON), which is considered the most effective

control of emissions from fugitive emissions like equipment leaks. Under HON, at section

63.170 in Subpart H, EPA regulates “surge control vessels.” Each surge control vessel that is not

routed back to the process and that meets the volume and vapor pressure conditions specified in

HON Subpart H Tables must be equipped with a closed-vent system that routes the organic

vapors vented from the surge control vessel or bottoms receiver back to the process or to a

control device.

The Working Group suggests that EPA regulate PVC MACT gasholders, just as it has

other surge control vessels at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart H.

C. Gasholder Procedural Requirements

While it is difficult to measure the ambient emissions from a gasholder, there have been

several engineering studies conducted to estimate the fugitive emissions from gasholders. It is

estimated, based on the Occidental Chemical Corporation/Oxy Vinyls, LP PVC MACT section

114 sampling results, that a small gasholder’s estimated fugitive emissions are approximately

0.88 ton per year (“TPY”) VCM, while a larger gasholder could emit 3.30 TPY VCM. A

summary of these studies and the resulting work practices follows below.

1. Reducing Emissions From the Water Seal and the Wet Bell Wall

Emission reductions from using floating objects to cover the water seal, such as floating

balls or mats, can reduce emissions by reducing the exchange surface between the VCM

concentrated water and the ambient air. Floating objects like balls or hollow disks reduce the

exchange surface in certain locations; however, the wind can move the balls or hollow disks to

one side of the water seal, causing them to bunch on top of each other and/or blow the balls out

of the gasholder. The use of mats may be a more practical approach in windy locations. It has

been estimated that placing floating objects could reduce water seal emissions by about 71% to

78%.148

Emission reductions by placing an oil layer to cover the water seal have been analyzed as

well. The oil film covers the bell wall as it rises by replacing the usual water layer. This control

approach could produce oil-contaminated water, which may impact birds attracted to the water

and/or contaminate the production process with oil. Hydrophobic paint on the bell wall to reduce

the water clingage factor was evaluated as well. This approach could cause the water seal to

148 See Verville J, et. al., Estimation of Vinyl Chloride Emissions from Gasholders and Validation of In Situ

Emission Reduction Methods,” J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 54(2):172-80, Feb. 2004.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

95

become fouled with paint that does not stay on the bell wall, thereby causing contamination

concerns.

2. Beyond-the-Floor Controls

As previously stated, there are 16 gasholders currently in operation. For BTF, EPA must

consider various impacts, such as costs and emissions reductions (cost effectiveness), of any

identified more stringent regulatory options in determining whether MACT standards are to

reflect BTF requirements. The Working Group considered constructing an enclosure-type

structure around gasholders. This potential control mechanism was quickly rejected due to the

high cost and to safety concerns in the creation of an explosive environment (collecting and

storing fugitive VCM emissions in a tent-like structure).

As such, the Working Group suggests that the MACT standard for gasholders should be a

combination of equipment control and procedural requirements. Accordingly, the Agency

should include a definition of gasholder and prescribe work practice standards as set out below:

Gasholder means a surge control vessel with a bell that is floating in a vessel

filled with water. The bell rises and lowers as low-pressure gases enter and leave

the space beneath the bell and the water provides a seal between the enclosed gas

within the floating bell and the ambient air.

Sec. 63.xxxx Standards: Gasholders.

a. Each gasholder that is not routed back to the process shall be equipped

with a closed-vent system that routes the organic vapors vented from the

gasholder back to the process or to a control device that complies with the

requirements in section 63.11940 of this subpart.

b. Each gasholder must operate with one of the following procedural

requirements:

i. Install floating objects to reduce emissions from the water seal;

floating objects may include:

1. Balls;

2. Hollow disks;

3 Oil layer; or

4. Mats.

c. Standard operating procedures that include provisions for ensuring that the

floating objects are in place on the gasholder water seal exposed to the

ambient air must be developed and implemented; and made available upon

request by the Administrator.

X. Pressure Relief Devices

A. Pressure Relief Devices Release to Atmosphere Should Not be an Automatic

Violation
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

96

According to the proposed rule, “[a]ny release to the atmosphere from a pressure relief

device in HAP service...constitutes a violation of this rule.”149 The Working Group submits that

the proposed provision is over broad and should not automatically constitute a violation for the

reasons set out below. According to the Agency’s proposed definition, a pressure relief device

means:

a safety device used to prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum

allowable working pressure of the process component. A common pressure relief

device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve....” 150

The Part 61 VCM NESHAP has long recognized that proper operation of Pressure Relief

Devices (“PRDs”) is a necessary component of safe and responsible plant operation. Thus the

NESHAP excludes emergency relief valve discharges as a violation:

Except for an emergency relief discharge...there is to be no discharge to

the atmosphere from any relief valve on any equipment in vinyl chloride

service.151

PRDs are designed to prevent equipment from exceeding maximum allowable working

pressures in emergency situations such as natural disasters, failure of the external power grid and

other situations outside of the operator’s control. Exceeding these pressure limits could result in

catastrophic equipment failure and uncontrolled releases of HAPs with potentially dire

consequences for the plant and surrounding community. PRDs are a last line of defense when

primary, secondary, and even tertiary safety systems such as emergency polymerization

termination agents, emergency cooling systems, back-up power generation, venting to control

systems, etc., have failed to bring an emergency situation under control. The Agency’s

classification of proper operation of a necessary safety system as a violation seems contrary to its

mission of environmental protection.

PVC industry members endeavor to make their processes as safe as possible to protect

their employees and the communities they work in; nevertheless, it is not possible to design a

system that will operate perfectly. The laws of physics also apply, and material stress and

fatigue, pressure, temperature, can all play a role, in spite of good engineering design and

practice, to create failure conditions. It is simply unreasonable for the U.S. Government to

mandate the use of a safety device on the one hand, and on the other, render its intended mode of

operation a violation of law.

EPA must recognize that it cannot subordinate safety during a time of emergency

stemming from a process malfunction. Creating a situation where an operator or manager must

now consider the legality of a designed automatic emergency measure that will be an automatic

violation could lead to hesitation at a critical time and undermine the safety of our workers and

the communities we work in. Ironically, a delay also could lead to catastrophic destruction of

149 76 Fed. Reg. 29,598 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12005).

150 76 Fed. Reg. 29,567 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11915(c)).

151 40 C.F.R. § 61.65(a).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

97

equipment and even greater emissions than from the release. EPA must not characterize safety

systems and their functions as emissions violations.

In addition, it is technically infeasible to route every PRD to a closed vent system.

During a period of malfunction, pressure fluctuations are not isolated or limited, but can be

system-wide. Closed vent systems are similarly affected during malfunction. PRD venting to

the atmosphere allows the safety aspect to become independent of emissions controls. Besides,

the Agency has other options for implementing the Act’s mandate, while allowing operators

maximum flexibility to respond in an emergency. For example, EPA should provide an

affirmative defense for PRD releases so that the safety of employees, contractors, and visitors

(including EPA inspectors) is not sacrificed. The Affirmative Defense criteria at section

63.11895(a)(4) is a good starting point:

If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control device

components or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss

of life, personal injury, or severe property damage...

The PVC industry currently operates under a one pound reporting requirement to the

National Response Center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, the VCM NESHAP

currently requires PRD release to be reported within 10 days to EPA, including a root cause

analysis. These reports on incidents are now reported in the quarterly compliance report to the

Agency.

B. Automatic Release Indicators Are Not Necessary

EPA proposes at section 63.11915 to require that all PRDs: (1) have an indicator to alert

operators “immediataly and automatically” when the PRD is open; or (2) be routed through a

closed vent system (CVS) to a control device.152 The Working Group submits that indicators

with immediate automatic operator alerts are unnecessary for the following reasons. First, the

PVC industry is currently subject to Part 61.242-4 ‘Standards: Pressure relief devices in

gas/vapor service’ that states:

(a) Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in gas/vapor service shall

be operated with no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less

than 500 ppm above background, as measured by the method specified in section

61.245(c).

(b)(1) After each pressure release, the pressure relief device shall be returned to a

condition of no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than

500 ppm above background, as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after

each pressure release, except as provided in section 61.242–10. (2) No later than 5

calendar days after the pressure release, the pressure relief device shall be monitored to

confirm the condition of no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading

of less than 500 ppm above background, as measured by the method specified in section

61.245(c).

152 76 Fed. Reg. 29,567 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11915(c)).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

98

(c) Any pressure relief device that is routed to a process or fuel gas system or equipped

with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and transporting leakage from the

pressure relief device to a control device as described in section 61.242–11 is exempt

from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(d)(1) Any pressure relief device that is equipped with a rupture disk upstream of the

pressure relief device is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section, provided the owner or operator complies with the requirements in paragraph

(d)(2) of this section.

(d)(2) After each pressure release, a new rupture disk shall be installed upstream of the

pressure relief device as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after each

pressure release, except as provided in section 61.242–10.

In addition, all PVC plants typically have rupture discs installed below relief valves in

VCM service that discharge to the atmosphere. Most plants now monitor the space between the

rupture disc and the PRD for leaks on a routine basis using a local pressure indicator and log this

information for safety purposes. A leak in a rupture disc could impede the flow to a PRD when

an emergency situation exists.

Process safety management (“PSM”) mechanical integrity programs are in place at all

facilities as mandated by OSHA 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119 and EPA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 RMP (risk

management plan), which requires preventative maintenance and inspection on all relief valves

on a specified frequency, requiring record keeping for OSHA inspectors. OSHA requires

process hazard analyses to be conducted every 5 years to verify all the safety systems are

adequate for personnel protection.

Most importantly, multiple systems and procedures already exist at facilities to detect and

remedy releases from PRDs. Some of these include electronic monitoring of process and

equipment pressures with multi-stage alarms (high and high-high) to continuously monitor

control rooms, operators stationed in the process areas with the ability to both visually and

audibly detect PRD operation, video surveillance of process areas from control rooms, and VCM

monitoring systems designed to detect releases and the area of the plant in which they are

located. If implemented as proposed, approximately 50 to 100 relief valves per facility at an

estimated cost of $5,000 to instrument will need to be upgraded at a cost to each PVC facility

between $250,000 to $500,000. The cost to the industry calculates to be $3.5 to $7.0 million to

comply with this request, without any corresponding reduction in emissions.

XI. Equipment Leaks

EPA mandates the use of the equipment leak provisions under Part 63, Subpart UU even

though only three of the best five performing sources currently are complying with Subpart UU.

The other two facilities comply with Subpart V of the Part 61 NESHAP. The Agency provides

no rationale for selecting Subpart UU, the most burdensome option, and cites no evidence that

leak rates were better when using Subpart UU than Subpart V.153 Indeed, the Working Group

153 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-100, at 40.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

99

submits that there are no differences in performance and requests that EPA provide an option to

implement the equipment leak provisions of either Subpart UU or Subpart V.

The requirement at section 63.11910(c)(3) for annual monitoring of all “potential leak

interfaces” on storage vessels is redundant with the equipment leak provisions in section

63.11915. Additionally, the monitoring frequencies for some equipment in Subpart UU are not

on an annual basis, which conflicts with the annual monitoring frequency requirement in section

63.11910(c)(3). The Working Group asks EPA to delete section 63.11910(c)(3) and rely on the

requirements of the proposed section 63.11915 to address equipment leaks from components on

storage vessels. At a minimum, the Working Group asks EPA to provide a definition of

“potential leak interfaces” or similar guidance as the term is not defined. In the absence of a

definition or clarification, the requirement to monitor “potential leak interfaces” could potentially

lead to absurd results, such as monitoring and inspecting the entire surface area of the storage

vessel. In addition, EPA should clarify the required monitoring frequencies if the Agency retains

section 63.11910(c)(3).

The requirement in section 63.11915(b) to also comply with section 63.11915(a) is

confusing and is duplicative at times. For example, the seal requirements for compressors at

section 63.1031(b) in Subpart UU achieve the same results as the compressor seal system

requirements in the proposed section 63.11915(b)(3) and (4). Therefore, the provisions of

section 63.11915(b)(3) and (4) are redundant with Subpart UU, raising a double jeopardy

concern should the lone seal system requirement in both rules be violated. The Working Group

requests that EPA eliminate the requirements of section 63.11915(b)(3) and (4).

The reference in section 63.11915(a) to specific sections of Subpart UU overlooks the

requirements applicable to pumps in light liquid (LL) service of section 63.1026 and the

requirements for agitators in gas/vapor and LL service at section 63.1028. The Working Group

requests that EPA add the references to sections 63.1026 and 63.1028 to section 63.11915(a).

Proposed section 63.11915(b)(1) and (2) would require pump seal installations that are optional

under Subpart UU’s section 63.1026(e). Likewise, proposed section 63.11915(b)(5) would

require agitator seal installations that are optional under Subpart UU’s section 63.1028(e). EPA

should revise the pump and agitator seal section to be consistent with Subpart UU. In addition,

the Working Group opposes the installation of the noted seal types on pumps and agitators that

are in heavy liquid service as the proposed rule requires at section 63.11915(b)(1), (2), and (5) as

they provide no meaningful environmental benefit. Therefore the Working Group asks EPA to

delete the requirements of sections 63.11915(b)(1), (2), and (5).

The Working Group opposes the need for a requirement to report releases within 10 days

from pressure relief devices in section 63.11915(c) as a violation of the rule. The Working

Group also seeks clarification of the unspecified means of notification of operators that EPA

mandates per the proposed section 63.11915(c)(3). If the release exceeds a CERCLA or EPCRA

reportable quantity, then EPA will already be receiving a notification through the National

Response Center (NRC), making the notification in section 63.11915(c)(3) redundant and

burdensome. The Working Group requests EPA to delete these reporting requirements in section

63.11915(c) and (c)(3).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

100

The PVC industry cannot “immediately comply” with section 63.11930(a) through (g) if

a closed vent system in vacuum service cannot be returned to vacuum service if the vacuum is

lost as required by section 63.11930(h)(2). The Working Group asks EPA to remove this

provision for closed vent systems in vacuum service.

EPA requires a 30-day notice to have the opportunity to have an observer present to

witness inspections required for LDAR activities, heat exchange systems, and closed vent

systems as stated in section 63.11985(c)(1). The Working Group requests EPA to remove this

notification requirement for the equipment leak, heat exchange system, and closed vent

provisions in section 63.11915 by removing the references to sections 63.11915, 63.11920, and

63.11930 because inspections are conducted on such a frequency (potentially multiple times

during a single day) that notification is overly burdensome on EPA and on the regulated

community. In case EPA does not choose to eliminate these section references, the Working

Group requests clarification of the specific inspection requirements in these three sections for

which EPA needs to be notified.

XII. New Source Emissions Limits Should Allow for Variability and Flexibility

A. EPA Should Revise the Effective Compliance Date for New Sources to be 3 Years

After Promulgation

CAA Section 112(i)(2) states:

Special Rule. – Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (1), a new source

which commences construction or reconstruction after a standard, limitation or

regulation applicable to such source is proposed and before such standard,

limitation or regulation is promulgated shall not be required to comply with such

promulgated standard until the date 3 years after the date of promulgation if- (A)

the promulgated standard, limitation or regulation is more stringent than the

standard, limitation or regulation proposed; and (B) the source complies with the

standard limitation or regulation as proposed during the 3 year period

immediately after promulgation.

The “Special Rule” attempts to consider those producers who begin construction of a new source

during the period when the proposed rule is under comment and revision.

However, in the case of the proposed PVC MACT rule, EPA has made such serious

miscalculations of MACT floor emissions limits for the resin calculations to the extent that they

do not represent the best 5 performers or for that matter any single best performer. Specifically,

EPA used a factor of m=30 when it should have used a factor of m=1 for its statistical UPL

computation for the resin. EPA also used Method 8260B for RVCM limits yet has proposed

compliance using Method 107, and the two methods produce widely different results with

Method 8260B significantly underreporting vinyl chloride. EPA has set a limit on RVCM for

stripped suspension resin that not a single producer meets or could meet with any known

technology.

Likewise, limits for process vents for new sources, and limits on vinyl chloride, total

organic HAPs/THC, hydrogen chloride, and dioxin and furans are not achievable by any single
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

101

source, nor were the test conditions representative of normal maximum operating conditions for

a stand-alone PVC producer under which these values were determined. EPA incorporated test

results from much larger thermal oxidizers operated well under their maximum design operating

conditions.

In consideration of the intent of the CAA “Special Rule” to enable compliance with a

reasonably proposed standard, EPA should revise the final rule to allow for new sources to come

into compliance three years after the final rule is promulgated.

B. EPA Should Allow for Resin Grade Variability in Determining New Source Limits

for Stripped Resin

The PVC resin industry produces over 100 different grades and types of resin. Not all

grades or types are made by each producer. Using the best performer in the industry for stripped

resin limits for new sources effectively limits any new source to the resin portfolio made by that

producer. EPA should account for variability in resin types and grades by expanding its list of

top performers to include a full complement of resin grades for a particular type of resin.

For example, using the VI Concentration Data Base, grades of resin were identified as

Low Molecular Weight (“LMW”), General Purpose (“GP”), and High Molecular Weight

(“HMW”). EPA should ensure that the best performers used to set new source limits

manufacturer each of these grades so as not to preclude the expansion of one grade or another

because of the Agency’s singular focus on what is believed to be a best performing facility, when

in fact performance may just be the result of the resin grade manufactured rather than any

technological superiority.

C. EPA Should Consider Percent Operating Capacity When Establishing New

Source Limits for Process Vents

In addition to basing its new source limit on a best performer that was a co-located

control device and not operating at its maximum vent gas condition as a result of specific EPA

instructions not to include co-located vent gases, EPA is using data from a test period of

significantly reduced industry throughput by as much as 34% from its maximum production rates

experienced in the prior three years.154 EPA should set standards for new sources based on a

single best performing PVC-only facility. For example, Westlake’s Calvert City, Kentucky test

results did not include the vent gas from a co-located copolymer production facility which the

Westlake Calvert City facility was designed to accept, thereby creating test results from a control

device that may not normally exist for a new source.

D. EPA Needs to Base Stripped Wastewater Limits on Actual Data and Not on

Engineering Estimates

EPA is proposing a new source limit for vinyl chloride concentration in stripped

wastewater that is based on an engineering estimate. EPA should calculate the MACT floor for

wastewater based on actual measured data. EPA should treat non-detects in the same fashion for

154 Docket Document No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0042.1, Vinyl Institute (VI) Letter to USEPA on Resin

Seasonality (September 24, 2010).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

102

wastewater as it does for other emissions streams for purposes of calculating MACT floors. The

Vinyl Institute has submitted a comprehensive data base for vinyl chloride concentrations in

stripped wastewater. EPA should determine its new source limits based on the best performer

from the actual data submitted by the Vinyl Institute.

XIII. Final PVC MACT Must Address Regulatory Overlaps

Unlike other MACT standards, in which EPA addresses regulatory compliance overlap

for Title V purposes, the proposed PVC MACT does not include any such provisions other than

a discussion of the PVC MACT’s relationship to the Part 61, Subpart F (VCM NESHAP) at

proposed section 63.11871.155 Below is a brief discussion of the regulatory overlap concerns the

Working Group has identified to date, followed by suggested language to correct the omission.

Specifically, the Working Group suggests that the following overlap areas be addressed:

A. CAA Regulatory Overlap:

 Part 60 Subpart Kb: If a PVCPU has any storage vessel that was subject to New

Source Performance Standard (NSPS) Kb and is now subject to the PVC MACT, then

only the provisions of PVC MACT should apply. PVCPUs should have the option to

bring a NSPS Kb tank into the PVC MACT, just as other MACTs allow.

 Part 63 Subpart J: If a PVCPUs was required to comply with the vacated PVC

MACT, as at least one PVCPU must do in accordance with its case-by-case MACT

determination, then only the provisions of the PVC MACT should apply.

 Part 63 Subpart EEEE: If a PVCPU has any storage vessels or transfer operations

that are affected by the Organic Liquids Distribution MACT (“OLD MACT”), only

the provisions of the PVC MACT should apply.

 Part 63 Subpart DDDDDD: If an area source PVCPU was required to comply with

the PVC and Copolymer NESHAP for area sources, then only the provisions of the

PVC MACT should apply.

B. Shared Control Device System Overlap:

 Other Part 63 MACTs: If a PVCPU utilizes a control device system that is already

regulated under another Part 63 MACT (e.g., HON), then the provisions of the PVC

MACT would apply to waste gases from the PVC Unit, and the provisions of the

other Part 63 MACT would apply to the affected sources within the other MACT and

could cause regulatory inconsistencies. For example, when establishing new PVC

MACT operating limits (like firebox temperature), there may be a conflict with the

HON established operating limits (i.e., a unit is in compliance for HON, but out of

compliance for PVC MACT). As a solution to the matter, the Working Group offers

the following suggestions:

o Perhaps, EPA can accept what was done within the Boiler MACT at 40 CFR

63.7491(i), in which a boiler is exempt from the Boiler MACT if the boiler is

155 76 Fed. Reg. 29,563 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11871).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

103

used as a control device to comply with another Part 63 subpart, provided that

at least 50 percent of the heat input to the boiler is provided by the gas stream

that is regulated under another subpart; or,

o EPA makes it clear when the PVC MACT requirements apply and when the

other MACT’s requirements comply; or,

o EPA waits, as was previously suggested in these comments until the PVC

MACT is promulgated to develop clean and unambiguous compliance

instructions.

C. VCM NESHAP “Sunset” Concern:

 Part 61 Subpart F directs certain affected sources to comply with Part 61 Subpart V

for leak detection and repair. A clear break from Part 61 Subpart V is also needed

within the PVC MACT.

D. The Following Overlap Language Should be Added to the PVC MACT:

63.xxxxx What compliance options do I have if part of my PVCPU is subject to

both this subpart and another subpart?

For any equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream subject to the

provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may elect to comply only with the

provisions as specified paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. You must identify the

subject equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream, and the provisions with which

you will comply in your notification of compliance status report required by §

63.11985(a).

(a) Compliance with 40 C.F.R. part 60, subpart Kb: After the compliance date

specified in § 63.11875, you are in compliance with this subpart if you have a

storage vessel with a fixed roof, closed vent system, and control device in

compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. part 60, subpart Kb, except that you

must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in

this subpart. Alternatively, if a storage vessel in the PVCPU is subject to control

under 40 C.F.R. part, 60, subpart Kb, you may elect to comply only with the

requirements in this subpart.

(b) Compliance with 40 C.F.R. part 63, subparts J and DDDDDD: After the

compliance date specified in § 63.11875, an affected source that is also subject to

40 C.F.R. part 63, subparts J or DDDDDD is required to comply only with this

subpart and not 40 C.F.R. part 63, subparts J or DDDDDD, as applicable.

(c) Compliance with 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart EEEE: After the compliance date

specified in § 63.11875, you are in compliance with this subpart if you have an

organic liquid storage tank; transfer racks at which organic liquids are loaded into

or unloaded out of transport vehicles; and/or any associated Leak Detection and

Repair (LDAR) equipment that is in compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R.

part 63, subpart EEEE except that you must comply with the monitoring,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

104

recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this subpart. Alternatively, if a

storage vessel or transfer operation in the PVCPU is subject to control under 40

C.F.R. part 63, subpart EEEE, you may elect to comply only with the

requirements in this subpart.

(d) Compliance with other subparts of this part: If you have a PVCPU emission

source that is controlled via another part 63 MACT standard, then you must

comply with the emission limits; operating limits; work practice standards; and

compliance, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the

PVCPU emission sources, and you must continue to comply with the

requirements in the other part 63 MACT standard that are applicable to the

affected sources in the other part 63 MACT standard.

E. Suggested language for VCM NESHAP break:

§ 63.11871 What is the relationship to 40 C.F.R. part 61, subpart F?

After the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11875(a), (b), or (c), an affected

source that is also subject to the provisions of 40 C.F.R. part 61, subparts A, F, and V, is required

to only comply with the provisions of this subpart and not 40 C.F.R. part 61, subparts A, F, and

V.

XIV. EPA Should Correct Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Table 10 summarizes citations and cross-references in the proposed rule that the

Working Group believes are either inconsistent or in error. We propose revisions for the

Agency’s consideration.

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,533 --

EPA says in the preamble,

“You would also be required

to equip all openings in the

pressure vessel with closure

devices that are designed to

operate with no detectable

emissions, as determined

using procedures specified in

40 C.F.R. §63.11910(a)(3) of

the proposed rule.“

The VI believes that the

correct citation is to

§63.11910(c)(3).

29,566

29,567

29,583

63.11910(a)

63.11910(c)(1)

63.11915(c)

63.11955(a)(1)

"If you elect to use a fixed

roof storage vessel vented to

a closed vent system and

control device, the closed

vent system and control

device must meet the

requirements in §§63.11925

through 63.11950."

The VI believes that these

references pertaining to these

sections are incorrect since

they addresses more

requirements than those that

address fixed roof tanks.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

105

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,568

29,593

63.11920(a)(3)(ii)

63.11990(d)(4)(v)

63.11990(d)(4)(v)(D)

"Determine the total

strippable volatile organic

compounds concentration (in

parts per billion by weight) in

the cooling water using

Method 8021B, “Aromatic

and halogenated Volatiles by

Gas Chromatography Using

Photoionization and/or

Electrolytic Conductivity

Detectors,” dated December

1996 (incorporated by

reference, see §63.14)."

The VI cannot find a specific

reference to this test method

in §63.14.

29,568 63.11920(a)(4)(ii)

"For heat exchange systems

for which you have delayed

repair, as provided in

paragraph (f)..."

The VI believes that the

reference should be to

paragraph (g).

29,568 63.11920(f)

“If you do not detect any

leaks when conducting

additional monitoring for

each heat exchanger or

group of heat exchangers,

the heat exchange system is

excluded from repair

requirements in paragraph

(d) of this section.“

The VI believes that the

correct citation is to

§63.11920(e).

29,569 63.11920(h)(4)

“An estimate of the potential

emissions from the leaking

heat exchange system

following the procedures in

paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and

(g)(4)(ii) of this section.“

The VI believes that the

reference should be to

paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and

(h)(4)(ii) in §63.11920.

29,569 63.11925(c)(1)

"According to the

schedule specified

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)

through (iii) of this section,

..."

The VI believes that this

reference should be to

§63.11925(c)(1)(i) through (ii)

since there is no paragraph

(c)(1)(iii).

29,569

63.11925(c)(1)(i)

63.11925(c)(2)(i)

63.11925(c)(2)(ii)

63.11925(c)(3)

"...emission limit for process

vents, as specified

in paragraphs (d)(2)

through (4) and (e) of this

section."

The VI believes that this

reference pertaining to CEMS

should be to paragraphs

(d)(2) through (4) and (e)(2)

through (3).

29,569 63.11925(c)(1)(ii)

"... hydrogen chloride

emission limit for process

vents, as specified

in paragraphs (d) and (e) of

this section."

The VI believes that the

reference to paragraphs (d)

and (e) should be to

paragraphs (d)(2) through (4)

and (e)(2) through (3).

29,569 63.11925(c)(2)

"According to the

schedule specified

in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)

through (iii) of this section,..."

The VI believes that this

reference should be to

§63.11925(c)(2)(i) through (ii)

since there is no paragraph

(c)(2)(iii).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

106

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,570 63.11925(d)(5)

"You must meet the

requirements of paragraphs

(d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this

section,..."

The VI believes that this

reference should be to

§63.11925(d)(5)(i) through (ii)

since there is no paragraph

(d)(5)(iii).

29,570 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(C)

"You must demonstrate

continuous compliance with

each operating limit

established in paragraph

(d)(4)(iii) of this section..."

The VI believes that the

correct reference is to

§63.11925(d)(4)(ii) as there is

no paragraph (d)(4)(iii).

29,570 63.11925(e)(4)(ii)(C)

"You must demonstrate

continuous compliance with

each operating limit

established in paragraph

(d)(4)(iii) of this section.(5)

Each closed vent..."

The VI believes that there is a

format error and that

§63.11925(e)(5) should begin

on a new line.

29,573 63.11935(a)(1)

"For each control device

specified in §63.11925(c)..."

The VI believes that the

correct reference is to

§63.11925(b).

29,573 63.11935(b)(4)

"If supplemental gases are

added to the control device,

you must correct the

measured concentrations in

accordance with

§63.11945(d)(1)."

The VI believes that the

correct reference is to

§63.11945(d)(3).

29,573 63.11935(b)(7)

"... you must notify the

Administrator as specified in

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii)

of this section."

The VI believes that the

correct reference is to

§63.11935(b)(7)(i) and (ii).

29,583 63.11956(d)(1)

63.11956(d)(2)

"A calibration gas mixture

prepared from the gases

specified in sections 7.2.1

and 7.2.2 of Method 106 and

in accordance with section

10.1 of Method 106, or..."

The VI believes that each

reference to Method 106

should be followed by the

descriptive phrase "at 40

C.F.R. part 61, appendix B."

29,583 63.11956(d)(2)

"... these gas mixtures may

be directly used to prepare a

chromatograph calibration

curve as described in

sections 8.1 and 9.2 of

Method 106."

The VI believes that the

references to sections 8.1 and

9.2 in Method 106 are

incorrect and that the correct

reference is to section 10.3.

29,585 63.11960(c)(1)(iii)(C)

"... and a statement that you

will establish an operating

limit for the monitored

operating parameter as part

of the notification of

compliance status report

specified in §63.11935(d)."

The VI believes that the

reference to §63.11935(d)

should be expanded to

include references to

§§63.9(h), 63.11985(a), and

63.11935(d)(4).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

107

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,585 63.11960(c)(2)

"You must ensure that each

operating parameter

monitored in paragraph (c)(1)

through (4) of this section for

the stripper meets the

operating limit established in

paragraph (b)(4) of this

section."

The VI believes that the

reference to §63.11960(c)(1)

through (4) is incorrect and

that the correct reference is to

§63.11960(c)(1). Additionally,

the VI believes that the

reference to “(b)(4) of this

section” should be to

§63.11960(b)(6).

29,585 63.11960(c)(6)(ii)

"In the first 12 months

following your demonstration

of initial compliance in

paragraph (b)(4) and (5) of

this section, you must

demonstrate continuous

compliance with the total

HAP emission limit for

stripped resin in Table 1 or 2

to this subpart on a monthly

basis as specified in

paragraph (b)(4) and (5) of

this section."

The VI believes that the two

separate references to

§§63.11960(b)(4) and (5) are

incorrect. The first reference

dealing with initial compliance

is addressed by

§63.11960(b)(5) alone. The

second reference to

§63.11960(b)(4) and (5)

addresses continuous

compliance using monthly

testing; this requirement is

found in §63.11960(c)(5).

29,585 63.11960(d)(2)

"For measuring total HAP,

you must propose a method

in your test plan prepared in

§63.7(c)(3) and (e)(2)(i) for

conducting sampling and

analysis..."

The VI believes that the

references to §63.7(c)(3) and

(e)(2)(i) are incorrect, since

those paragraphs address

approval of site-specific test

plans by the Administrator.

29,585

29,589

63.11960(d)(2)(ii)

§63.11980(a)(2)(ii)

Method 8260B Volatile

Organic Compounds by Gas

Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry (GC/MS) in

“Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods,”

Revision 3, February 2007,

EPA Publication No. SW846, Third Edition

(incorporated by reference,

see §63.14) for sample

analysis."

The VI cannot find a specific

reference to this test method

in §63.14. Same comment for

the reference to 8260B in

§63.11980(a)(2)(ii).
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

108

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,586 63.11965(c)

"For each wastewater stream

that contains greater than or

equal to 1,000 parts per

million by weight total HAP in

paragraph §63.11970(a)(2)

or §63.11975(d)(3), and has

an annual average flow rate

greater than or equal to 10

liters per minute in

§63.11970(a)(2) or

§63.11975(e)(2), as

determined pursuant to

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this section, you must

meet the requirements in

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)

of this section."

The VI believes that the two

references to §63.11970(a)(2)

are incorrect, and that EPA

should be referring to the

provisions of §63.11970(a)(3)

which address wastewater

streams that contain greater

than or equal to 1,000 parts

per million by weight of total

HAP and an annual average

flow rate greater than or equal

to 10 liters per minute.

Additionally, the VI believes

that the reference to

§63.11975(d)(3) is also

incorrect and that perhaps

EPA was referring to

§63.11975(c).

29,587 63.11970(a)(1)(i)

"You must conduct an initial

site-specific performance

evaluation test of each

CPMS according to your site

specific monitoring plan and

§63.11935(c)(2)."

The VI believes that the

reference to §63.11935(c)(2)

is incorrect. The provisions of

§63.11935(c)(4) address

initial and periodic sitespecific performance

evaluation tests.

29,588 63.11975(e)(1)

“The data averaging period

for demonstrating

compliance is specified in

subpart G of this part."

The VI requests EPA to

provide a more specific

reference citation for the data

averaging period.

29,589 63.11985(a)(5)

“You must include the

records specified in

paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through

(iv) of this section, as

applicable, for process

vents."

The VI believes that the

reference to

§63.11985(d)(5)(i) through (iv)

is incorrect, and that it should

be to §63.11985(a)(5)(i)

through (iv).

29,590 63.11985(b)(1)

“You must also include a

copy of the applicable

information specified in

§63.1039(b)(5) through (8) of

subpart UU..."

The VI believes that the

reference to §63.1039(b)(5)

through (8) is incorrect.

29,590 63.11985(b)(2)

“... instead of the information

specified in §63.1039(b)(1)

through (3) of subpart UU of

this part."

The VI believes that the

reference to §63.1039(b)(1)

through (3) is incorrect.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

109

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,592 63.11985(c)(1)

"To provide the Administrator

the opportunity to have an

observer present, you must

notify the Administrator at

least 30 days before an

inspection required by

§§63.11910 through

63.11920 and §63.11930."

The VI believes that the

references to §§63.11910

through 63.11920 and

§63.11930 are incorrect,

especially to the equipment

leak provisions of §63.11915.

EPA should only need

notification for performance

testing required by

§63.11945.

29,592

29,593

63.11985(c)(10)(ii)

63.11985(c)(10)(iii)

“Within 60 days after the date

of completing each CEMS

performance evaluation test

(see §60.13), you must

submit the relative accuracy

test audit electronically into

EPA's CDX by using the

ERT, as mentioned in

paragraph (10)(i) of this

section.“

The VI believes that the

correct citation is to

paragraph (c)(10)(i). Likewise

in §63.11985(c)(10)(iii) there

are two more references to

paragraphs (10)(i) and (ii) that

the VI believes should be

changed to (c)(10)(i) and (ii).

§63.11985(c)(10)(iii) makes

two more references to

paragraphs (10)(i) and (ii) that

should be corrected.

29,596 63.12000

The definition of continuous

process vent in §63.12000 in

paragraph (4) states, “... you

must comply with the

requirements in §63.113(a)(i)

of this part.“

The VI believes that this

reference to subpart G is

incorrect, since §63.113(i)

addresses off-site control or

on-site control not owned or

operated by the source.

29,596 63.12000

The definition of continuous

process vent in §63.12000 in

paragraph (6) states, “The

gas stream would meet the

characteristics specified in

paragraphs (1) through (6) of

this definition....“

The VI believes that the

correct citation is to

paragraphs (1) through (5).

29,597 63.12000

The definition of first attempt

at repair in §63.12000 states,

“... followed by monitoring as

specified in §63.11930(f) to

verify whether the leak is

repaired....“

The VI believes that this

reference to §63.11930(f)

which deals only with closed

vent system leak repairs is

incorrect.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

110

Table 10: Summary of Cross-Reference and Citation Errors

Reference

(p.) Reference (§) Language at Issue Suspected Error

29,597 63.12000

The definition of maximum

true vapor pressure in

§63.12000 states in

paragraph (3), “As

determined by the American

Society for Testing and

Materials Method D2879-10

(incorporated by reference,

see §63.14).“

The ASTM D2879 Test

Method cited in §63.14 is for a

different version, "ASTM

D2879–83, 96, Test Method

for Vapor PressureTemperature Relationship

and Initial Decomposition

Temperature of Liquids by

Isoteniscope, IBR approved

for §63.111 and §63.2406"

and EPA should correct this

reference.

29,597 63.12000

The definition of operating

scenario in §63.12000 states,

“... as described by reports

specified in §63.11985(b)(3)

and records specified in

§63.11990(e)(4).“

The VI believes that this

reference to §63.11985(b)(3)

is incorrect and the reference

should be to

§63.11935(d)(4)(i) and/or

§63.11985(b)(4)(ii).

29,598 63.12000

The definition of repaired in

§63.12000 references

§63.11930(f) which

addresses closed vent

system leak repair

provisions.

The VI believes that this

reference to §63.11930(f)

which deals only with closed

vent system leak repairs is

incorrect.

29,602 Table 5

In Table 5, in the cell

containing the explanation for

the reduction of monitoring

data in §63.8(g) references

§63.11890(e).

The VI believes that this

reference to §63.11890(e) is

incorrect, since there is no

§63.11890(e). Data reduction

requirements for CPMS and

CEMS are in §63.11935(e).

29,606 Table 9

In Table 9, the method cited

for use for Total Organic

HAP is "Method 25A at 40

C.F.R. part 60, appendix A."

The VI believes that the

accurate reference is to

Method 25A at 40 C.F.R. part

60, appendix A-7.

XV. Conclusion

We appreciate the agency’s careful attention to the industry’s comments. For purposes of

logical presentation in response to the agency’s proposal, various portions of the rule have been

discussed separately. It must be remembered, however, that each manufacturing facility in the

PVC and copolymers source category is an integrated and interdependent sum of these various

parts. Facilities do not consist of fungible, modularized parts; replacing or modifying one

process or technology may compromise the integrity of the entire facility in the absence of

careful, facility-wide evaluation and adjustment. A holistic view must be maintained in

establishing regulatory limits and compliance parameters. While we have not expressed this in

individual sections, our comments collectively support a comprehensive and rationale approach

to finalizing a strong MACT standard.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

Comments of the Vinyl Institute PVC MACT Working Group

111

While we generally support the agency’s approach to the rulemaking, the fact that not a

single facility in the industry can meet the proposed limits for stripped resin dramatically

illustrates the calculation and data selection errors in the proposed MACT floors. Analogous

issues appear with regard to process vents and wastewater, with yet additional aspects of the rule

needing definition or revision to create a workable whole. Without these changes, the PVC

MACT will fail to comply with the agency’s statutory mandate.

We recognize that the changes we have presented will require the agency’s careful

validation and implementation. Given the complexity and scope of our comments, the industry

stands ready to provide clarification or assistance so that our comments are properly understood.

Yet, because none of these changes depart from the fundamental framework of the proposal, they

can be directly adopted in the final rule.

The statutory framework helps ensure that the PVC and copolymer industry can continue

to produce the mix of products upon which its customers depend, both now and in the future, and

allows for U.S. manufacturers to grow their business and compete in a global market. The

changes we request are consistent with this directive.

As we stated in the introduction to our comments, there is no conflict in these statutory

prerequisites. Because we have respected the statutory plan and the agency’s framework with a

conservative approach to the regulation of each potential HAP, a PVC MACT that incorporates

the revisions we suggest will result in a final rule with significantly lower permissible emission

limits for vinyl chloride coupled with new and stringent limits for other hazardous air pollutants

that may be associated with the wide variety of resins produced across this subcategory. But a

final rule without these changes would fail to address the statutory mandate while simultaneously

forcing every facility in the industry into noncompliance with unattainable standards.