Corporate Health, Environment, Safety and Security Department

Occidental Chemical Corporation 

 Corporate Office 

5005 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75244-6119 

 P.O. Box 809050, Dallas, TX 75380-9050 

 972/404-3800 

Via Electronic Mail and Fedex

November 9, 2009 

USEPA 

QAQPS/SPPD/CCG (E143-01) 

4930 Old Page Road 

Durham, NC 27703 

 

Attn: 

Jodi Howard, Environmental Engineer 

USEPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Program Divisions 

Coatings and Chemicals Group 

Re: PVC and Copolymer MACT: Requirement to Provide Information Pursuant to 

Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7414) 

Dear Ms Howard, 

We are in receipt of your letter dated September 21, 2009, and Email of October 20, 

2009, in which you asked Oxy Vinyls, LP (“OVLP”) to submit sampling and testing plans 

for OVLP’s Deer Park, Texas PVC plant by November 10, 2009, in response to the 

above-referenced information request. Your request was directed to “area source” PVC 

plants, which do not emit or have the potential to emit greater than 10 TPY of any 

individual hazardous air pollutant (“HAP”) or greater than 25 TPY total HAPs, as defined 

in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Our Deer Park plant is an area, or “minor” source of 

HAPs. 

 Enclosed are the following two documents: 

1) Stack Test Plan. The stack test plan is for one of the thermal oxidizers located at our 

LaPorte, Texas EDC/VCM production facility, which treats a vent gas stream generated 

at the Deer Park plant. Also, included in this document is a quantification plan for other 

miscellaneous fugitive sources at the Deer Park plant. The thermal oxidizers at our 

LaPorte plant have undergone more than fifteen sets of stack tests in the last ten years, 

primarily to demonstrate compliance with the HON MACT Standard. Therefore, we have 

proposed a testing plan that references some of our existing data. We believe this is a 

reasonable and economically efficient approach for generating the data EPA believes it 

needs from this small source. 

2) Resin Sampling Plan. The resin sampling plan is for the PVC resin produced at our 

Deer Park plant. Please note that based upon the preliminary lab validation work that 
Corporate Health, Environment, Safety and Security Department

Occidental Chemical Corporation 

 Corporate Office 

5005 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75244-6119 

 P.O. Box 809050, Dallas, TX 75380-9050 

 972/404-3800 

has recently been completed, the reporting limits have been modified for some 

compounds and are different from some of the limits submitted in our prior two resin 

sampling plans for our Pedricktown and Pasadena PVC facilities. These changes are 

due to (1) the choice of a methanol extraction procedure for Method 8260 to ensure 

extraction of VOCs from PVC resin, and (2) a matrix interference encountered in the 

methylene chloride extraction of PVC resin for the analysis of semi-volatiles by Method 

8270. As we complete our analytical validation efforts, further changes may occur, but 

are not anticipated at this time. Please note that all three OVLP resin sampling and 

analysis plans will be changed in an identical manner to reflect these modified reporting 

limits. 

EPA’s Justification for Collecting Data

In our letter of October 8, we asked for EPA’s justification, when promulgating a major

source MACT Standard, for collecting data from a minor source currently subject to a 

valid area source GACT Standard. In response, you forwarded a copy of the preamble 

to the final NESHAP for Brick and Clay Structural Products Manufacturing (“Brick MACT 

Standard”).1

 In general, the language cited in the preamble appears to provide a 

rationale for collecting data from synthetic minor sources because they may be among 

the best performing sources due to the use of superior emission controls. 

Specifically, EPA identified “synthetic minor sources” to include those facilities that emit 

fewer than 10 TPY of any HAP and fewer than 25 TPY of total HAP “because they use 

some emission control device (or devices), the operation of which is required by a 

Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (“FESOP”). In the absence of such 

controls, these sources would be major.”

2

 EPA defines controls to include “the use of 

some emission control device(s), pollution prevention techniques and other measures. . . 

adopted under Federal or State regulations.”3

Deer Park PVC Plant Status

For the record, no improved control technology has been added to our Deer Park PVC 

manufacturing process to lower emissions since OVLP acquired the site in 1998. The 

Deer Park PVC unit is situated within a larger industrial site owned by OVLP, which 

previously included a chlorine manufacturing unit with extensive utilities support. When 

both manufacturing units were operating, the site was classified as a major source. 

OVLP idled the chlorine unit in late 2001. In 2005, the chlorine manufacturing unit and 

part of the utilities were permanently decommissioned and eventually demolished. We 

reviewed the site’s air permits and decided to void certain permits, including the site’s 

 

1

 68 Fed. Reg. 26690, 26697 – 26698 (May 16, 2003). 

2 Id., at 26697 (emphasis added). 3 Id. 
Corporate Health, Environment, Safety and Security Department

Occidental Chemical Corporation 

 Corporate Office 

5005 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75244-6119 

 P.O. Box 809050, Dallas, TX 75380-9050 

 972/404-3800 

Title V operating permit, and amend the state NSR air permits for the remaining 

operations on the site. 

Based on the site’s operating history, emission reductions were achieved primarily by 

shutting down emission sources, rather than the installation of improved control 

technology for the PVC manufacturing process. Our current HAP limits are not based on 

the use of a new “emission control device (or devices), the operation of which is 

required” by a FESOP. Consequently, our area source facility does not warrant 

consideration as a possible best performer in the PVC manufacturing category, does 

not belong in the PVC MACT floor analysis, and should not be subject to the PVC 

MACT information request. By submitting testing and sampling plans, OxyVinyls does 

not concede that the Deer Park minor source facility should be incorporated into any 

PVC MACT floor analyses or standard. 

Technical Basis for Stack Testing

From a technical perspective, we continue to question the merit of requiring stack testing 

and analysis of the process that manages vent gas from the Deer Park PVC facility. As 

we noted in our letter of October 8, the vent gas from the Deer Park plant accounts for 

only a small percentage of the total amount of vent gas transferred to the LaPorte 

facility’s thermal oxidizers. On an “organics-to-organics” basis, the Deer Park vent gas 

comprises about 2 percent of the total organic flow to the thermal oxidizers at LaPorte. 

We are compelled to inform the Agency that there are considerable technical issues 

associated with assessing oxidizer performance on the Deer Park vent under any testing 

scenario. Given that the amount of vent gas from Deer Park is utterly de minimis and 

inconsequential when compared to the total flow to the LaPorte oxidizer, we do not 

believe that oxidizer performance relative to our PVC plant can be accurately assessed 

with our current operating scenarios. Furthermore, given that the vent streams 

generated by the La Porte plant also contain chlorinated organics, we question the 

technical feasibility of attempting to estimate the efficiency of the La Porte thermal 

oxidizers in processing the Deer Park plant’s vent gas. We do, however, propose to 

isolate the vent gas flow from Deer Park into a single oxidizer in an effort to gather data 

in accordance with the CAA 114 request. This is not our normal operation, but will 

provide data unique to oxidation of the Deer Park PVC vent stream. This testing 

scenario may require us to augment the vent gas flow with natural gas fuel. 

In summary, testing under either of these scenarios may not provide meaningful 

information that can be used to support a PVC MACT standard. Therefore, we again 

ask EPA to reconsider the purported value of requiring stack testing for the Deer Park 

vent gases, particularly in light of extensive test work done previously for the HON 

MACT and the significant financial and resource impact that the testing will impose on 

our Deer Park facility. 
Corporate Health, Environment, Safety and Security Department

Occidental Chemical Corporation 

 Corporate Office 

5005 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75244-6119 

 P.O. Box 809050, Dallas, TX 75380-9050 

 972/404-3800 

Timing of EPA Response and Approvals

Due to limited production schedules at our Deer Park PVC plant, we have a short time 

period in which to conduct any sampling. Therefore, we appreciate your prompt 

assessment of this situation and review of our plans. In order to adhere to our schedule 

it is critical for the Agency to review the enclosed plans and respond within two weeks of 

this submittal. 

If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 972 404 3209. 

Sincerely, 

Barry Christensen 

Manager of Air Quality 

Occidental Chemical Corporation 

3 enclosures 

Cc by mail: 

Carl Edlund, USEPA, Region 6 (6EN-AA), Air Division Director, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202-2733, w/ Enclosure 1 and 2 only 

Mr. Michael Beatty, TX Commission on Environmental Quality, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, TX 

7871 1-3087, w/ Enclosure 1 and 2 only