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 thatCorporate 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 so urces” 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 pr evention 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 un it 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, emi ssion 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 performanc e 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 pl ant’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 extens ive 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 Divi sion Director, 1445 Ro ss Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, w/ Enclosure 1 and 2 only

Mr. Michael Beatty, TX Commission on Environmenta l Quality, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, TX 7871 1-3087, w/ Enclosure 1 and 2 only