MEMORANDUM 

To: Jodi Howard, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG 

From: Graham Gibson and Colin Hayes, ERG 

Date: September 14, 2009 

Subject: Summary of July 23, 2009 Meeting Between EPA and The Vinyl Institute to 

Discuss Remanded Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (PVC) 

NESHAP Issues, Proposed Section 114 Survey, and Draft Source Testing Plan 

On July 23, 2009, members of The Vinyl Institute (VI) met with EPA at EPA’s campus 

in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The meeting agenda provided by VI is present as 

Attachment A in this document. The attendees and affiliation are listed below: 

Name Representing 

James Bell Shintech Corporation (attended via telephone) 

Jennifer Gibbs U.S. EPA Region 6 (attended via telephone) 

Craig Lutz U.S. EPA Region 6 (attended via telephone) 

Mark Kataoka U.S. EPA, OGC (attended via telephone) 

Tom Driscoll U.S. EPA, OAQPS, SPPD 

Jason Dewees U.S. EPA, OAQPS, AQAD 

Barry Christenson OxyChem Corporation 

Mark Garza Shintech Corporation 

Ken Hustvedt U.S. EPA, OAQPS, SPPD 

Jean-Cryil Walker Keller and Heckman LLP (Attorney representing the 

Vinyl Institute) 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 1 of 11 
Mary Bachynsky Formosa Plastics Corporation 

Jodi Howard U.S. EPA OAQPS, SPPD 

Richard Krock The Vinyl Institute 

Laura Whiting OxyChem (attended via telephone) 

Otis Sistrunk PolyOne Corporation (attended via telephone) 

Colin Hayes Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Graham Gibson Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

The meeting began at 1:00 PM. A summary of the meeting’s discussion follows. 

I. Opening Remarks 

EPA stated the following as goals of the meeting: 

 VI should focus their comments on the content of the Section 114 letter and draft testing 

procedures. VI confirmed that their comments focus on those documents only. 

 EPA cannot make any formal decisions on changes during this meeting. 

II. Prior Emissions Data and Changes to VI

Mary Bachynsky opened the discussion for VI with notes on previously submitted emissions 

data from PVC facilities and changes to the universe of facilities within the PVC industry. 

Topics presented and notes follow: 

 VI stated that they did not notice any tie back to the VCM NESHAP or PVC MACT. 

Some of the data being requested has already been submitted and could be correlated 

with this request. EPA asked if this tie-in was referring to emissions monitoring. 

 VI stated that two separate requirements should be made for dispersion resins and 

suspension resins due to the fact that corporations do not necessarily manufacture both. 

VI provided the following industry information: 

o OxyChem manufactures suspension resins. 

o Shintech Corporation manufactures suspension resins. 

o Formosa Plastics Corporation manufactures dispersion resins. 

o Georgia Gulf Corporation manufactures specialty resins. 

 VI stated that the following companies are still a part of the PVC industry: 

o CertainTeed Corporation 

o Formosa Plastics Corporation 

o Georgia Gulf Corporation 

o OxyChem (discontinued production in Louisville, KY plant) 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 2 of 11 
o PolyOne Corporation 

o Dow Chemical Company 

o Technoplex Corporation (does not polymerize VCM) 

III. Comments and Recommendations on Section 114 Request and Draft Test Plan

Comments were presented for VI by Mary Bachynsky and Barry Christenson. 

Recommendations were provided for the restructuring of the Section 114 request and draft test 

plan. 

 VI stated that the date of November 30, 2009 for completion of the survey and testing is 

not physically possible due to the magnitude of the testing. Some of the pollutants have 

never been tested at some of these facilities. 

o OxyChem stated that they cannot afford a test for each pollutant at each grade of 

resin. EPA asked VI if multiple grades of resin can be manufactured at one time. 

VI stated that it is a possibility, but market demand usually dictates only one 

grade being manufactured at one time. 

 OxyChem has 16 facilities. 

 The total estimated cost to perform stack testing is around $8 million. 

o The PVC industry is tied into the housing and automotive industry, so it is 

difficult for PVC manufacturers to spend large sums of money on stack testing at 

this time. 

o Shintech Corporation stated there is a lack of stack testing contractors in Texas 

and Louisiana. Preliminary estimates were to have as many as 13 contractors on 

site at one time doing stack testing to meet the compliance date. 

o Production rates would need to be at a maximum in order to achieve worst-case 

results for stack testing. This is not beneficial for a facility if it cannot sell or 

store the resin. 

o Some diagrams asked for in the survey appear on separate documents. They 

would have to be generated or compiled and approved before being able to be 

submitted. 

 EPA noted the existence of existing stack test data and asked VI if they have developed a 

compromise for the proposed testing plan. VI expressed their interest in a two-pronged 

request for submitting the survey and any emissions data from each facility, and then 

finding gaps in data and formulating a test plan based on those gaps. 

o EPA stated that there will be a court-ordered deadline for rule promulgation and 

asked VI if the survey could be submitted with the existing emissions data very 

quickly. VI responded that they envisioned a realistic compliance date for only 

the survey portion to be February 2010. 

 The attorney for VI stated that this deadline is an aggressive approach for 

VI given the fact that the court-ordered deadline has not yet been 

specifically determined. VI expects that their opinion will be heard and 

are willing to help as much as possible to establish a deadline. 

 EPA confirmed that the deadline has not been determined, however, one 

will likely be determined in the future. EPA stated that any information 

VI can provide would be beneficial, such as the following: 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 3 of 11 
 Number of months it may take to complete the survey. 

 Amount of money is needed to conduct the testing. 

 Number of contractors needed. 

 VI stated that the requested information can be provided, but not by the 

original deadline of November 30, 2009. VI believes that February 2010 

is a reasonable deadline to provide this information. 

o EPA also asked if the available emissions data is current. VI asked EPA to define 

a time limit on current emissions data, to which EPA stated to be no older than 

three years. VI stated that most data was obtained longer than three years ago, but 

if it reflected current operating conditions then there should not be any reason it is 

not valid. 

o OxyChem stated that they conducted a rather large dioxins/furans test in 2002 and 

consider that data to be up to date. 

o Formosa Plastics Corporation reiterated that they currently do not have the ability 

to test for dioxins/furans. 

 VI stated that they are required through state permits to identify emission sources and 

amounts of pollutants per source. VCM emissions have been affected the most by state 

permits, but there has not been a lot of tracking of other HAP. 

o EPA asked if these emission sources pertained to individual reactors or groups of 

reactors. VI stated that the permits pertain to individual reactors. 

o EPA asked if the amounts of pollutants per source apply from the control device 

backwards throughout the process, which was confirmed by VI. 

o VI stated that there may be millions of pounds of VCM emissions compared to 

only tens or hundreds of pounds of other HAP emissions in the same time frame. 

o EPA asked if state permits require industry to speciate between the different HAP. 

VI responded that this happens occasionally, but most speciation is based on VOC 

limits. TRI chemicals must be estimated. 

 EPA stated that they do not believe they need to wait for a survey response in order to 

know what needs to be tested. EPA asked why VI couldn’t specify the data which they 

currently do not have. 

 VI responded by raising the issue they have with conducting 8 hour test runs, comparing 

them to the 4 hour test runs required as a result of the boiler and process heater MACT. 

VI also reiterated the problem with testing for every pollutant from every grade of resin 

at multiple process locations. Developing the information for each facility and pollutant 

at each process location will take time. 

 VI raised the issue of testing at the inlet to the incinerator and inlet to other control 

devices. VI added that some facilities are co-located with other plants or processes which 

share the incinerator. 

o VI stated that, if more than just a stream from the PVC process is entering the 

facility, it will be difficult to get realistic emission data from only that stream. 

o EPA asked if these co-located facilities are more prevalent in industry than standalone facilities. VI responded that it varies by location within the U.S. 

 EPA stated they wanted data on control device inlets because they want to regulate solely 

on the outlet of the incinerator from just the PVC process. Since VCM is regulated in 

another rule, the best way to get the desired data is to test the incinerator inlet and outlet. 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 4 of 11 
o VI stated that incinerators are regulated under Hazardous Waste and HON 

regulations. As a result of those regulations, there should be emissions data 

available from other rulemakings. 

o VI stated that they believe there is no need to test identical PVC plants. They 

understand the MACT determination of the best performing 12% and stated that a 

way around that needs to be determined. 

o VI agrees that surrogacy needs to be addressed with testing. Some incinerators 

have HCl, and there is no HCl regulation in the VCM NESHAP. However, they 

believe that there is enough HCl data from incinerators readily available to EPA. 

o EPA stated that incinerator emissions from other rulemakings may not necessarily 

be representative of the PVC process. HCl provisions need to be put in place for 

plants that only produce PVC. A nationwide MACT must be considered. 

o EPA asked if some of the incinerators at PVC facilities were regulated under 

Section129. VI stated that some of the incinerators burn hazardous waste, while 

others do not. 

o VI stated that they believe that if the incinerators are regulated by more stringent 

rules, the data available from those regulations can be used to determine the data 

gaps and any needed testing. 

o EPA stated that those other regulations do not account for PVC process inputs 

into the incinerators. VI believes that the nature by which HCl is created from 

PVC process inputs is identical to other processes. 

 EPA is willing to consider existing test data, but will need to evaluate it and is unaware of 

a large amount of usable data. EPA again asked how soon the data could be submitted by 

VI. 

o VI stated that a large amount of data was submitted last year to EPA, to which 

they received no questions or comments. VI stated they were trying to aid in the 

progression of the rulemaking process, but got no response from EPA on whether 

or not the data was usable. 

o EPA stated that the data submitted by VI was not provided in the requested format 

and, thus, the data could not be used. The data provided were ranges of emissions 

for all plants and were not segregated on a plant-by-plant basis. 

o VI reiterated that they received no comments on the data that was submitted. 

o The VI attorney stated that he believed the submittal of data a year ago was not a 

data dump; it was intended to generate a conversation between EPA and VI to aid 

EPA in how to proceed. 

 VI reiterated the fact that they cannot test for each pollutant for each grade of resin. 

o EPA stated that they believe there are only about 6 primary types of resins, on 

which they want testing. EPA believes that emissions will vary between the 

different grades of resin. 

o VI stated that EPA should have used the terminology “category” instead of 

“grade” of resin. 

 VI stated that they would like a stand-alone PVC facility to conduct testing. EPA agreed. 

 EPA stated that VI is alluding to the fact that every plant would not need to test for every 

type of pollutant, but that if all the data from all facilities is compiled the data gaps would 

be filled. EPA stated that they generally do not allow this because the different facilities 

are competitors and it generally does not get worked out in a smooth manner. 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 5 of 11 
 EPA reiterated that they are concerned with non-VCM HAP, and they will be a focal 

point going forward. 

 EPA asked VI if, assuming they were willing to conduct testing under their proposed data 

gap plan, how would they decide who would test what. VI stated that, after they 

determine the data gaps, they will evaluate each industry and determine the most costeffective strategy for each facility. 

o VI also admitted that they have not yet discussed this between members. 

o EPA asked how many members there are in VI. VI responded that there are five 

members that are currently producing PVC, and three producing companies that 

are not currently producing VI members. VI stated that the non members have 

been contacted. EPA stated that they have contacted Dow Chemical Corporation. 

o VI stated that Dow Chemical Corporation, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and 

CertainTeed Corporation are the three non members. 

 VI stated some facilities have dryers with no control devices, some with water scrubbers, 

and some with bag houses. 

o EPA stated that they were unaware of bag houses as controls in the PVC process. 

o VI stated that the bag houses remove particulates, and that small amounts of VCM 

may be attached to those particulates. 

o VI expressed their disinterest in spending money to determine the amount of VOC 

removed by bag houses. 

 EPA stated that, if limited data is submitted, much more stringent regulations could be 

imposed than needed. If a performance-based rule is issued, it will be based on the data 

available. If there are only a few data points for a pollutant, the best of those data points 

will be used as the standard. 

o VI stated that they thought performance-based standards are a result of the 

average of the five best-performing facilities. EPA stated that if only one data 

point is submitted, then that point is the only one that will be used to set the 

standard. 

o VI asked why there should even be a regulation if there is only one data point, as 

it appears to be a waste of money. EPA stated that it does not have the 

information that industry has to be able to characterize the emissions from the 

entire industry. 

o VI stated that, for the list of 129 HAP, they could look at product MSDS and 

processes and figure out, from an engineering standpoint, what HAP have the 

potential to be emitted. This data could then be used to calculate the expected 

emissions, and tested to verify. It would be a waste of money to test for dioxins if 

it is calculated that dioxin emissions are not possible. 

o VI asked if a standard needs to be imposed for individual HAP. EPA stated that 

this may not be necessary due to surrogacy, but test data is needed in order to 

confirm which pollutants might be considered surrogates. 

o EPA stated that dioxins are unique and do not have a surrogate. If only one 

dioxin data point is submitted, no other pollutant can be used to determine dioxin 

emissions. 

o EPA stated that NEI emissions have been evaluated for the PVC process. One 

facility reported chromium emissions. 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 6 of 11 
o EPA is sympathetic to the time issues, but also needs the data and knows that it 

can be submitted by industry. 

 EPA reiterated that they would like existing test data to be submitted, although they have 

no idea when industry last tested. EPA stated they originally had hoped for full reports to 

be submitted, but are now open to receiving any data that can be submitted by VI. 

o VI reiterated they have dioxin data from 2002 and asked if it was applicable. 

o EPA stated they will discuss that and get an answer back to VI. EPA admitted 

receiving comments from other stakeholders about the 2002 dioxin data. 

o EPA asked if the existing test data was generated in a compliance scenario. 

Process testing cannot be used for this regulation. 

o VI responded by asking if emissions are needed, reiterating that emissions could 

be calculated. EPA responded that actual test data is optimal, and also asked how 

emission factors would be calculated. VI stated that it is required by regulations 

to measure the residual VCM in resins. 

 EPA asked VI if they would be content with a standard of 1 ppm. 

o VI reiterated their stance on wondering why there even has to be a standard. VI 

believes EPA is imposing an obligation to show that HAP are emitted and the 

only way to do this is by stack testing. VI asked if there was any way other than 

testing that can support that there will be no HAP emitted downstream from the 

resin strippers in the PVC process. 

o EPA stated they will take alternative methods into consideration. 

o VI stated that for dryers, if they took samples of wet resin and analyzed for HAP, 

then took samples of dry resin and calculated a difference, this is a fairly 

economical way to estimate emissions. 

o EPA asked if it would be logical to assume that the calculated difference in HAP 

is what is emitted. VI responded that there is nowhere else for the HAP to go. 

o EPA asked how HAP would be speciated by this calculation method, or if VCM 

would be used as a surrogate. VI stated that HAP other than VCM would also be 

calculated. 

o EPA asked if all facilities could agree with this approach. For the entire source 

category, if one plant is chosen for the analysis, the regulation for each facility 

would be based on what that facility emitted. 

o Other facility representatives in VI stated that they would look at the results for 

the facility and then determine if they agree with the approach. 

o EPA stated that the better approach would be to submit any existing test data from 

all plants. Otherwise, the regulation would be general and would characterize all 

plants with the possibility of being vague and unfair. 

IV. Next Steps & Conclusion 

At this point, all EPA members that were attending in person, with the exception of Jodi 

Howard, exit the meeting. Mark Kataoka, Jennifer Gibbs, and Craig Lutz remained on the 

phone. EPA and VI determine their next course of action via the following comments. 

 VI stated that the Section 114 letters should be delivered to the actual operating facilities 

instead of the corporate headquarters. 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 7 of 11 
 VI stated that most of the data is considered CBI and could not be submitted 

electronically. 

o OxyChem did not understand how to separate his CBI from the rest of the data. 

o OxyChem then asked if a portion of a survey sheet contains CBI, would the entire 

sheet then be considered CBI as a result. EPA responded that this is a correct 

assumption. 

 VI reiterated that they do not want to neglect any non-VCM HAP. 

 VI commented that the supplemental data and process information being requested by 

EPA is extensive. VI cited EPA’s request to provide actual recorded data where possible. 

VI stated that a lot of data is encompassed by that statement. VI would like the request to 

be pared down and simplified so that they know exactly what they are supposed to 

submit. 

o EPA asked VI to compile their specific comments and submit them to EPA. 

o VI reiterated that some of data may not be available if there are no current 

regulations in place requiring the facilities to collect and keep 

o EPA asked if VI was aware that the SSM provisions have been vacated. VI 

acknowledged that they were aware. 

 EPA asked VI if any facilities have adopted the alternative work practice. VI stated that 

the alternative work practice did not apply well to organics and it did not seem like it was 

used prevalently. 

o VI stated that, as technology is evolving, the alternative work practice may be 

used more extensively. 

o VI expressed their desire for some flexibility in this area. 

 VI noted the terminology “all process vents” in the survey and asked if this meant every 

vent from every piece of process equipment. EPA responded that they are not as familiar 

with the PVC process as VI and that this type of information is needed. 

 VI asked what level of detail should be used when focusing on the survey response 

sheets. VI also asked if this could be a stand-alone document for operators at the 

facilities. EPA stated they want the level of detail that applies to the specific facility. If a 

lot of detail is taken during the process, a lot of detail should be put into the sheets. 

 EPA asked if VI has compiled their specific comments in written form which may be 

submitted for review. VI stated that comments have been compiled on both the Section 

114 request and draft test plan. 

o VI stated that comments could be submitted with an estimate of how long they 

believe it will take to submit the survey and existing test data. 

o EPA stated that comments should be received first so that edits can be made to the 

letter and draft test plan. 

o VI asked if comments for the letter and test plan should be submitted separately. 

EPA stated that comments on the survey should be submitted first. 

o VI asked if there was a chance that the survey could go through the ICR process. 

EPA stated that there must be at least 10 corporations in order for the ICR process 

to be initiated. 

o EPA stated that VI will be notified of a deadline for the submittal of comments. 

 VI asked if corporations that produce PVC that are not members of VI need to do 

anything. EPA stated that those corporations will be contacted and thanked VI for those 

facilities’ contact information. 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 8 of 11 
 The VI attorney asked if EPA was able to say that the Section 114 letter will not be sent 

on July 31, 2009. EPA stated that they cannot give an answer to that at the meeting. 

 VI asked what is meant by the term “process unit.” EPA expressed interest in knowing 

the industry definition for that term. EPA suggested VI submit definitions with their 

comments. 

 VI extended their appreciation for the time to meet with EPA 

 The meeting concluded at 3:30 PM (EST). 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 9 of 11 
ATTACHMENT A 

VI Meeting Agenda 

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 10 of 11 
EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 

Page 11 of 11 

Draft: 07.22.09    

Meeting Agenda

EPA/VI – PVC MACT Draft Section 114 Survey and Test Procedure

Meeting Date/Time: July 23, 2009 at 1:30‐3:00 PM in EPA’s RTP Offices

EPA call‐in number is 919‐541‐4332

I.              Introduction of Attendees

II.             Review Meeting’s Goals: EPA and VI

III.          VI Has Long Urged Re‐promulgation of MACT and Provided EPA with Significant Data to date, Including:

a.   Information demonstrating that VCM NESHAP is as or more stringent than comparable MACT

b.   Differences in PVC resin morphology require a careful approach to MACT   

c.   Recent Developments in PVC Industry Have Changed the Universe of Facilities

  

IV.           VI Comments/Recommendations on Section 114 Request ‐ Two Step Approach Needed

a.   Industry survey should be completed first to assess sufficiency of prior and current data submissions, and EPA

data needs

b.   Testing should be required only as necessary to fill‐in data gaps not addressed by survey or reporting

requirements

  

V.            Specific Comments on Draft 114 Cover Letter

a.    Address to affected facilities, copy “Corporate Entity”

b.   Nature of PVC manufacturing process means that much of data requested is confidential and cannot be

submitted electronically

c.   The time frame for completing this request is infeasible (e.g., significantly more information being requested

than Sept. 2008 version, including testing as a new requirement, but only one additional month to respond)

d.   Significant Impediments Exist to Testing in a timely manner

                  i.     Need time to developing testing plan, select qualified contractor, schedule State Agency review (if

necessary), etc.

                  ii.     Based on prior experience, equipment modifications may be needed (e.g., sampling ports)

                  iii.     As testing was not included in 2008 draft, it has not been budgeted for — will need to obtain

funding (as drafted: too costly)

                  iv.     EPA requirement to conduct performance testing for each different grade of PVC is not feasible

from a cost standpoint and cannot be met within time frame provided because production schedule is based on

customer orders  

VI.           Specific Comments on Draft Section 114 Survey

a.   VCM NESHAP (Part 61 Subpart F) compliance consideration

b.   Past PVC MACT effort consideration

c.    Other MACT considerations (e.g., HCl MACT, MON, HWIR)

d.   Supplemental Data and Process Information Request: Extensive

  

VII.         Specific Comments on Draft Section 114 Test Procedure

a.   As proposed, test procedure would impose significant unbudgeted costs

b.   Testing scenario concerns (e.g. inlet & outlet; list of pollutants; each grade; 8 hr/run)

c.    EPA already has a significant amount of test data that it should accept in lieu of new testing  

VIII.        Next Steps & Conclusion