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 Betw een EPA and The Vinyl Institute to Discuss Remanded Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (PVC) NESHAP Issues, Proposed Section 114 Su rvey, and Draft Source Testing Plan

On July 23, 2009, members of The Vinyl Inst itute (VI) met with EPA at EPA’s campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Th e meeting agenda provided by VI is present as

Attachment A in this document. The at tendees 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 (A ttorney representing the Vinyl Institute)

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 Page 1 of 11Mary Bachynsky Formosa Plastics Corporation

Jodi Howard U.S. EPA OAQPS, SPPD

Richard Krock The Vinyl Institute

Laura Whiting OxyChem (a ttended 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 summar y 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 thei r comments focus on those documents only.

 EPA cannot make any formal decisi ons 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 univ erse 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 cor porations do not necessari ly manufacture both. VI provided the following industry information:

o OxyChem manufactures suspension resins.

o Shintech Corporation manuf actures suspension resins.

o Formosa Plastics Corporation ma nufactures dispersion resins.

o Georgia Gulf Corporation ma nufactures 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 producti on in Louisville, KY plant)

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 Page 2 of 11o PolyOne Corporation

o Dow Chemical Company

o Technoplex Corporation ( does not polymerize VCM)

III. Comments and Recommendations on S ection 114 Request and Draft Test Plan

Comments were presented for VI by Ma ry Bachynsky and Barry Christenson. Recommendations were pr ovided 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 te st 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 manufact ured 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 ho using and automotive industry, so it is

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

this time.

o Shintech Corporation stated there is a l ack 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 tes ting 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 benefi cial 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 inte rest in a two-pronged request for submitting the survey and any emi ssions data from each facility, and then finding gaps in data and formulati ng 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 envisi oned 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 confirm ed 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 benefi cial, 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 inform ation can be provided, but not by the original deadline of November 30, 2 009. VI believes that February 2010

is a reasonable deadline to provide this information.

o EPA also asked if the available emissions da ta 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 th at most data was obtained l onger than three years ago, but if it reflected current operat ing conditions then there shoul d not be any reason it is

not valid.

o OxyChem stated that they conducted a rather large dioxi ns/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 requi red through state permits to identify emission sources and amounts of pollutants per source. VCM emissi ons 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 pertai ned to individual reactors or groups of reactors. VI stated that the perm its 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 re quire industry to speciate between the different HAP. VI responded that this happens occasiona lly, 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 w hy 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 re sult of the boiler and pr ocess 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 tha t, if more than just a st ream 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 preval ent 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 th e PVC process. Since VCM is regulated in another rule, the best way to ge t the desired data is to test the incinerator inlet and outlet.

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 Page 4 of 11o 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 n eed 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 a ddressed with testing. Some incinerators have HCl, and there is no HCl regulati on 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 fr om other rulemakings may not necessarily be representative of the PVC process. HC l provisions need to be put in place for plants that only produce PVC. A na tionwide 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 regulat ed by more stringent rules, the data available from those regulat ions 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 identic al 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 wa s 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. Th e data provided were ranges of emissions for all plants and were not segr egated 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 lik e a stand-alone PVC facility to conduct testing. EPA agreed.

 EPA stated that VI is alluding to th e fact that every plant would not n eed to test for every type of pollutant, but that if a ll 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 willi ng 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 PV C, 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 Ch emical Corporation.

o VI stated that Dow Chem ical Corporation, Georgia Gulf Corporation, and CertainTeed Corporation ar e 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 ba g houses as controls in the PVC process.

o VI stated that the bag houses remove pa rticulates, and that small amounts of VCM may be attached to those particulates.

o VI expressed their disinter est 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 thoug ht performance-based standa rds are a result of the average of the five best-performing facili ties. EPA stated th at if only one data point is submitted, then that point is th e only one that will be used to set the

standard.

o VI asked why there should even be a regula tion 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 engi neering 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 impos ed 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 da ta 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 11o 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 te st data to be submitted, although they have no idea when industry last tested. EPA stated they originally had hope d 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 stak eholders 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 n eeded, reiterating th at emissions could be calculated. EPA responded th at actual test data is optimal, and also asked how

emission factors would be calculated. VI st ated that it is re quired by regulations

to measure the residual VCM in resins.

 EPA asked VI if they would be c ontent 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 altern ative 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 calcul ated a difference, this is a fairly economical way to estimate emissions.

o EPA asked if it would be logical to assu me that the calculated difference in HAP is what is emitted. VI responded that th ere 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 w ith 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 w ould be general and w ould characterize all plants with the possibility of being vague and unfair.

IV. Next Steps & Conclusion

At this point, all EPA members that were at tending 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 cour se 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 surv ey 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 coll ect 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 practic e. VI stated that the alternative work practice did not apply we ll to organics and it di d not seem like it was used prevalently.

o VI stated that, as technology is evolvi ng, the alternative work practice may be used more extensively.

o VI expressed their desire for so me 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 de tail that applies to the specific facility. If a lot of detail is taken during th e 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 subm itted 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 te st 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 m ust 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 sa y 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 “proce ss 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 11ATTACHMENT A

VI Meeting Agenda

EPA-VI Meeting - July 23, 2009 Page 10 of 11EPA-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 numb er is 919

‐ 541

‐ 4332

I. Introduction of Attendees

I I. 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 re quire 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 sh ould 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 ca nnot 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 d eveloping 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 Su bpart 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 sc enario 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