1150 F IRST A VENUE

, S UITE 501 ● K ING OF P RUSSIA

, PA 19406

6 1 0.945. 1 777 ● WWW

. COT E RI E

‐ E NV

. COM 

# P OLYVINYL 

# C HLORIDE AND



# C OPOLYMERS 

# P RODUCTION



# I NFORMATION 

# C OLLECTION 

# R EQUEST



# E MISSION 

# T EST 

# P LAN

N OVEMBER 

## 9, 2009 O XY 

## V INYLS



## , LP

D EER 

### P ARK



### , T EXAS

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page i 

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

............................................................................................................................... ... 1

‐ 1

1.1 Deer Park Plant Overview

................................................................................................ 1

‐ 1

1.2 LaPorte Plant Overview

................................................................................................... 1

‐ 2

1.3 Production Unit Overview

............................................................................................... 1

‐ 2

1.4 Control Device Overview

................................................................................................. 1

‐ 2

1.5 Emission Test Overview

................................................................................................... 1

‐ 6

1.6 Reference Documents

..................................................................................................... 1

‐ 7

1.7 Emission Test Plan Organization

...................................................................................... 1

‐ 7

1.8 Document Revision History

............................................................................................. 1

‐ 8

2.0 Process Description

....................................................................................................................... 2

‐ 1

3.0 Vent Gas Description

.................................................................................................................... 3

‐ 1

4.0 Continuous Monitoring Systems

................................................................................................... 4

‐ 1

4.1 Continuous Process Monitoring Systems

........................................................................ 4

‐ 1

4.2 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems

..................................................................... 4

‐ 1

4.3 Quality Assurance

............................................................................................................ 4

‐ 2

4.3.1 Process Monitors

................................................................................................ 4

‐ 2

4.3.2 Emission Monitors

.............................................................................................. 4

‐ 2

5.0 Emission Test Operating Conditions

............................................................................................. 5

‐ 1

5.1 30

‐ Day Monitoring Period

............................................................................................... 5

‐ 1

5.2 Stack Test

......................................................................................................................... 5

‐ 1

5.2.1 Process Units

....................................................................................................... 5

‐ 1

5.2.2 Miscellaneous Fugitive Sources

.......................................................................... 5

‐ 1

5.2.3 Thermal Oxidizer

................................................................................................. 5

‐ 2

5.2.4 Air Pollution Control System

............................................................................... 5

‐ 2

6.0 Data in Lieu of Testing

.................................................................................................................. 6

‐ 1

6.1 Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine

..................................................................................... 6

‐ 1

6.2 Dioxins and Furans

........................................................................................................... 6

‐ 2

6.3 Destruction Efficiency

...................................................................................................... 6

‐ 2

7.0 Sampling and Analysis

................................................................................................................... 7

‐ 1

7.1 30

‐ Day Monitoring Period

............................................................................................... 7

‐ 1

7.2 Emission Determinations for Miscellaneous Sources

...................................................... 7

‐ 2

7.2.1 Polyvinyl Chloride Screen Oversized Particle Handling Operations

................... 7

‐ 2

7.2.2 Vinyl Chloride Monomer Filter Removal Operations

......................................... 7

‐ 2

7.2.3 Hydroblasting of Reactors

.................................................................................. 7

‐ 3

7.3 Stack Test

......................................................................................................................... 7

‐ 3

7.3.1 Thermal Oxidizer Inlet Vent Gas

......................................................................... 7

‐ 4

7.3.2 Thermal Oxidizer Stack Gas

................................................................................ 7

‐ 4

8.0 Schedule

............................................................................................................................... ......... 8

‐ 1

8.1 Project Schedule

.............................................................................................................. 8

‐ 1November 9, 2009

Page ii 8.2 Stack Test Schedule

......................................................................................................... 8

‐ 3

9.0 Report

............................................................................................................................... ............ 9

‐ 1



# L IST OF 

# T ABLES

Table 1

‐ 1 Thermal Oxidizer Emissions Demonstrations Overview

.................................................. 1

‐ 7

Table 1

‐ 2 Document Revision History

............................................................................................. 1

‐ 8

Table 3

‐ 1 Deer Park Plant Vent Gas Characterization

..................................................................... 3

‐ 1

Table 4

‐ 1 Continuous Process Monitoring Systems

........................................................................ 4

‐ 1

Table 5

‐ 1 Thermal Oxidizer Typical Operating Conditions

.............................................................. 5

‐ 2

Table 5

‐ 2 Air Pollution Control System Typical Operating Conditions

............................................ 5

‐ 2

Table 6

‐ 1 Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Stack Test Results

........................................................ 6

‐ 1

Table 6

‐ 2 Dioxin and Furan Stack Test Results

................................................................................ 6

‐ 2

Table 7

‐ 1 30

‐ Day Monitoring Period Monitoring Methods

............................................................. 7

‐ 1

Table 7

‐ 2 Screen Oversized Particle Handling Operations Gas Sampling and Analytical Methods 7

‐ 2

Table 7

‐ 3 Hydroblasting Operations Gas Sampling and Analytical Methods

.................................. 7

‐ 3

Table 7

‐ 4 Stack Gas Sampling and Analytical Methods

................................................................... 7

‐ 4

Table 8

‐ 1 Thermal Oxidizer Stack Test Schedule

............................................................................. 8

‐ 3



# L IST OF 

# F IGURES

Figure 1

‐ 1 Deer Park Plant Plot Plan

................................................................................................. 1

‐ 4

Figure 1

‐ 2 LaPorte Plant Plot Plan

.................................................................................................... 1

‐ 5

Figure 7

‐ 1 Project Timeline

............................................................................................................... 8

‐ 2



# L IST OF 

# A PPENDICES

Appendix A: Quality Assurance Project Plan

Appendix B: Target Analytes

Appendix C: Deer Park Plant Vent Characterization

Appendix D: Previous Emission Test Reports

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 1 

# 1.0 I NTRODUCTION

This emissions test plan is being submitted by OxyVinyls, LP (OxyVinyls) for the polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

production facility operated at OxyVinyls’ Deer Park, Texas, facility. This emission test is being

conducted in response to United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Clean Air Act

Section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR), dated September 21, 2009, for Polyvinyl Chloride and

Copolymers Production facilities that qualify as area sources.

This plan describes the emission tests and quantification methods to be conducted for the thermal

oxidizer system and several miscellaneous fugitive emission sources for the purpose of collecting data

on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).



## 1.1 D EER 

## P ARK 

## P LANT 

## O VERVIEW

The Deer Park Plant is located in Harris County, Texas, approximately one mile north of the intersection

of State Highway 225 and Tidal Road. The facility is bounded on the north by the Houston Ship Channel,

on the south by the Port Terminal/Southern Pacific Railroad lines, on the east by Tidal Road/Rohm &

Haas Chemical Corporation, and on the west by Patrick Bayou. The facility is situated on approximately

430 acres. The coordinates of the center of the Deer Park Plant are latitude 29° 43’ 55” N, longitude

95° 06’ 42” W. A plot plan is provided in Figure 1

‐ 1 and shows the locations of the sources described in

this plan. The Deer Park Plant manufacturers anhydrous potassium hydroxide (KOH) and PVC plastic

resin. The primary feedstock for PVC manufacturing is vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), which is brought

into the plant by pipeline. Manufactured products leave the plant primarily by railcar, with a smaller

volume transported to customers by truck. At this time, the OxyVinyls Deer Park Plant is considered an

area stationary source of HAPs as defined in Part A, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended

November 15, 1990.

The street address of the OxyVinyls Deer Park Plant is:

OxyVinyls, LP

1000 Tidal Road

Deer Park, Texas 77536

All correspondence should be directed to the facility contact at the following address and telephone

number:

Jadie L. Pryor

Environmental Engineer

OxyVinyls, LP

P. O. Box 500November 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 2 Deer Park, Texas 77536

(281) 713

‐ 2666



## 1.2 L A 

## P ORTE 

## P LANT 

## O VERVIEW

The Deer Park Plant transports vent gases via pipeline from the PVC production process to another

OxyVinyls facility located in LaPorte, Texas. This facility manufacturers ethylene dichloride and vinyl

chloride and is regulated as a major source under the National Emission Standards for Organic

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON). At the

LaPorte Plant, the vent gases are sent to two identical thermal oxidizers for emission control. Emissions

from both of the thermal oxidizers have been tested on numerous occasions in the past. The LaPorte

Plant is located on Miller Cutoff Road approximately one

‐ half mile east of Independence Parkway (State

Highway 134) in LaPorte, Texas. The plant is situated on approximately 112 acres. The coordinates of

the center of the LaPorte Plant are latitude 29° 43' 39" N, longitude 95° 04' 36" W. A plot plan is

provided in Figure 1

‐ 2, which shows the location of the thermal oxidizers.

The street address of the OxyVinyls LaPorte Plant is:

OxyVinyls, LP

2400 Miller Cutoff Road

LaPorte, TX 77571

The LaPorte Plant is not a PVC production facility and is, therefore, not subject to the ICR. However, the

thermal oxidizers are the control device for the Deer Park Plant vent gases. Therefore, these units are

included in this emission test plan for the Deer Park Plant.



## 1.3 P RODUCTION 

## U NIT 

## O VERVIEW

The Deer Park Plant consists of two production lines. A production line consists of four adjacent

reactors, one slurry blowdown tank, one column feed tank, one or two slurry stripping columns, one

blend tank, two centrifuges, and one flash dryer. The plant has two production lines and can produce

two different product grades of PVC at one time. The reactors are operated in batch mode.

Downstream equipment from the column feed tanks through the drying step are a continuous

operation.



## 1.4 C ONTROL 

## D EVICE 

## O VERVIEW

Emissions from the two production lines are routed via pipeline to two thermal oxidizers located at the

LaPorte Plant. The thermal oxidizers receive dilute VCM and inerts from the Deer Park Plant in addition

to by

‐ product vent gases from the LaPorte Plant processes. The Deer Park Plant vents account for less

than two percent of the total organics in the waste gas sent to the thermal oxidizers. Both thermal

oxidizers are identical in design. The combustion gas from each thermal oxidizer is routed through a

dedicated waste heat boiler system used to recover heat to produce steam for plant use. The exhaustNovember 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 3 waste heat boiler system used to recover heat to produce steam for plant use. The exhaust gas from

the boiler then passes through a two stage wet scrubber before being exhausted to the atmosphere.November 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 6 

## 1.5 E MISSION 

## T EST 

## O VERVIEW

This emission test is designed to provide the information requested in USEPA’s ICR. The emission test is

comprised of four main components:

3⁄4 A 30

‐ day continuous monitoring period for carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbon (THC), and

methane emissions from one of the LaPorte thermal oxidizer system stacks;

3⁄4 Emission determinations for miscellaneous Deer Park fugitive sources;

3⁄4 Submittal of previously collected stack test data for the LaPorte thermal oxidizers; and

3⁄4 A one

‐ condition, three

‐ run stack test for one of the LaPorte thermal oxidizers for a list of targeted

pollutants.

This emission test is being coordinated by OxyVinyls personnel. METCO Environmental (METCO) will

perform all of the stack sampling for the test program. METCO will be responsible for all emissions and

process samples collected during the test program, with oversight by OxyVinyls. The emissions and

process samples will be sent to the following laboratories for analysis: TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc., of

Knoxville, Tennessee (TestAmerica) and Enthalpy Analytical, Inc., of Durham, North Carolina (Enthalpy).

Additional information on the project team roles and responsibilities is provided in the quality assurance

project plan (QAPP) in Appendix A.

For a 30

‐ day period, OxyVinyls will continuously monitor the concentrations of CO, THC, and methane in

the stack gas of one thermal oxidizer. The stack gas oxygen content will be monitored concurrently. A

portable continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) will be used to collect the data. This portable

unit will be operated by METCO.

OxyVinyls will determine the emissions from various fugitive sources or activities in the production

process. These sources include the off

‐ specification resin handling operations (screen oversized particle

handling operations), the VCM filter removal operations, and the hydroblasting of the reactors. The site

has no gasholders. Emissions from these fugitive sources will be determined using a combination of

emission testing and calculations.

The thermal oxidizer stack test will consist of three replicate test runs. Sampling will be conducted on

the stack gas of one thermal oxidizer. Information on the inlet vent gas will be provided from existing

data. In addition, OxyVinyls intends to submit existing stack test data for the thermal oxidizers to

minimize the testing required for the ICR. Table 1

‐ 1 provides an overview of the emissions

demonstrations planned for the stack test.November 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 7 

### T ABLE 

### 1

‐ 1

T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER 

### E MISSIONS 

### D EMONSTRATIONS 

### O VERVIEW

E MISSION D EMONSTRATION E XISTING D ATA

FOR I NLET

V ENT G AS E XISTING D ATA

FOR S TACK G AS S TACK T EST

Carbon monoxide 9 9

Total non

‐ methane hydrocarbons 9

Methane 9 9

Ethane, ethyl chloride, ethylene, ethylene dichloride,

vinyl chloride 9

Hydrogen chloride and chlorine 9 9

Vapor phase organic hazardous air pollutants 1 9

Dioxins and furans 9

Speciated volatile organic hazardous air pollutants 1 9

Speciated semivolatile organic hazardous air pollutants 1 9

1 See Appendix B for specific lists of target analytes.

OxyVinyls anticipates conducting the emission test in November and December 2009. A major plant

outage for both production lines is scheduled from the end of October until mid

‐ November. After the

outage, the A production line will operate until the third week in December, and the B production line

will only operate until the first week in December. After that time, the plant will be temporarily

shutdown. Consequently, it will be necessary to start resin sampling in mid

‐ November. The continuous

monitoring for CO, non

‐ methane THC, and methane will also begin in mid

‐ November. The stack testing

will be conducted during the week of November 30, 2009. The stack testing is expected to take four

days. OxyVinyls will make every effort to submit the emission test report by February 28, 2010, as

required by the ICR. If all the data cannot be compiled by February 28, 2010, a report summarizing the

results will be submitted.



## 1.6 R EFERENCE 

## D OCUMENTS

Reference documents that have been used in developing this plan include the following:

3⁄4 ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards

, latest annual edition;

3⁄4 USEPA, New Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures

, Appendix A,

40 CFR Part 60; and

3⁄4 USEPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes Physical/Chemical Methods (SW

‐ 846)

, Third Edition, November 1986 and updates.



## 1.7 E MISSION 

## T EST 

## P LAN 

## O RGANIZATION

This plan has been developed to provide all of the information necessary to perform the testing required

by the ICR. The remaining sections of the plan provide the following information:November 9, 2009

Page 1

‐ 8 3⁄4 Section 2 presents a description of the process equipment;

3⁄4 Section 3 presents information on the thermal oxidizer inlet vent gas;

3⁄4 Section 4 presents a description of the continuous monitoring systems (CMS) that will be used to

collect operating data for the emission test and also provides information on performance

evaluations performed for the CMS;

3⁄4 Section 5 presents a description of the emission test operating conditions;

3⁄4 Section 6 presents a summary of the existing data that is being submitted in lieu of testing;

3⁄4 Section 7 presents a summary of the test sampling and analysis procedures;

3⁄4 Section 8 provides a schedule for the emission test;

3⁄4 Section 9 describes the reports that will be generated for the emission test;

3⁄4 Appendix A includes the QAPP;

3⁄4 Appendix B contains the list of target analytes for the stack test;

3⁄4 Appendix C contains existing Deer Park Plant and LaPorte Plant vent gas analytical data; and

3⁄4 Appendix D contains the stack test data that is being submitted in lieu of testing.



## 1.8 D OCUMENT 

## R EVISION 

## H ISTORY

The original version of this plan was submitted on November 9, 2009. The nature and date of any future

revisions will be summarized in Table 1

‐ 2.



### T ABLE 

### 1

‐ 2

D OCUMENT 

### R EVISION 

### H ISTORY

R EVISION D ATE D ESCRIPTION OF C HANGES

0 November 9, 2009 Original submittal

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 2

‐ 1 

# 2.0 P ROCESS 

# D ESCRIPTION

Two production lines are operated to produce PVC at the Deer Park Plant. A production line consists of

four adjacent reactors, one slurry blowdown tank, one column feed tank, one or two slurry stripping

columns, one blend tank, two centrifuges, and one flash dryer. The raw material for PVC is VCM, which

is polymerized to form PVC resin. During reactor charging, the ingredients needed to make PVC (VCM,

initiators, suspension agents, etc .) are charged to the reactors, and the polymerization step begins. At

the end of the batch, two consecutive steps occur: (1) discharge of the polymerized PVC slurry to the

blowdown tank, and (2) recovery of un

‐ reacted VCM vapors to the VCM recovery system. The PVC

slurry is transferred from the blowdown tank through pumps and grinders to the column feed tank for

intermediate holding.

From the column feed tank through the drying step, the process changes from batch to continuous

operation. In the column feed tank, the VCM content is further reduced due to continued venting of the

vapor space to the VCM recovery system. The PVC slurry is transferred from the column feed tank to

slurry stripping columns through pumps and grinders to remove oversized material that could create

pluggage and/or produce undesirable resin properties. The stripping operation is accomplished by

pumping the PVC slurry through a sieve tray column where the VCM is stripped from the slurry by

injecting steam while operating the column under low pressure. The VCM removed is routed to the

VCM recovery system for reuse. The PVC and water slurry from the stripping column is pumped into

continuous centrifuges to separate as much water as possible from the solid PVC. The PVC is discharged

from the centrifuge as a wet cake, which is then fed to a flash dryer using a screw conveyor. The

separated water, centrifuge effluent water (centrate), is sent to a filter system where the solids are

separated and the bulk of the water is pumped to a reclaim tank for reuse in process utility applications.

From the discharge of the dryer, the finished resin is pneumatically conveyed to a screener building and

then to the product silos.

The Deer Park PVC production process includes several fugitive emission sources and activities that have

a potential to emit HAPs. The site has no gasholders. The fugitive sources include the off

‐ specification

resin handling operations, the VCM filter removal operations, and the hydroblasting of the reactors.

HAPs can also be emitted from the small amount of PVC chunks and off

‐ specification material handling.

Since, only a small number of PVC chunks boxes are generated per year and OxyVinyls is sampling PVC

chunks at two other facilities, OxyVinyls is proposing to sample emissions from oversize particles

generated from screening operations at this location.

Process vent emissions from the Deer Park Plant production lines are routed via pipeline to two thermal

oxidizers located at the LaPorte Plant. The thermal oxidizers were manufactured by John Zink Company.

Each unit is equipped with a 70 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) burner that is fired on

natural gas.November 9, 2009

Page 2

‐ 2 The exhaust gas from each thermal oxidizer is routed through a waste heat boiler and a wet scrubber.

The waste heat boiler utilizes the heat from the combustion gases to produce steam for use in the plant.

The combustion gases exit the waste heat boiler and enter the two

‐ stage wet scrubber. The lower

section of the scrubber uses water to remove hydrochloric acid (HCl) to produce muriatic acid for plant

use. The upper section uses caustic and sodium thiosulfate to remove any remaining HCl and chlorine

(Cl

2 ) from the exhaust gas before being exhausted to the atmosphere. A demister is located between

the lower and upper sections to prevent acid carry over to the upper section. The gases exit the

scrubber through a 100

‐ foot high stack.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 3

‐ 1 

# 3.0 V ENT 

# G AS 

# D ESCRIPTION

The VCM recovery system is designed to reclaim for re

‐ use, un

‐ reacted VCM from the various phases of

PVC production process. VCM and other gases (vent gases) that cannot be reclaimed are routed via

pipeline to the LaPorte Plant thermal oxidizers.

The Deer Park Plant vents are only a small fraction of the vent streams sent to the LaPorte thermal

oxidizers on a regular basis. In addition to this vent, vents from the LaPorte VCM production processes

are routed to the thermal oxidizers. The Deer Park Plant vents account for approximately one percent

of the mass of waste gas fed to the thermal oxidizers during normal operations.

The process vent streams from the Deer Park Plant are characterized on a regular basis. OxyVinyls

believes that this information is sufficient to characterize the vent gas in lieu of performing extensive

testing on the inlet to the thermal oxidizers during the stack test. Table 3

‐ 1 provides a summary of the

characterization data for the Deer Park Plant vents. This characterization data is determined on a

monthly basis. Appendix C contains the monthly inlet vent gas characterizations. This accounts for the

majority of the vent gas composition. The main HAP constituent in both the PVC vent and the ethylene

dichloride (EDC)/VCM vents is VCM.



### T ABLE 

### 3

‐ 1

D EER 

### P ARK 

### P LANT 

### V ENT 

### G AS 

### C HARACTERIZATION

P ARAMETER C ONCENTRATION

(% VOL )

Nitrogen 33.54

Oxygen 9.25

Carbon dioxide 9.34

Carbon monoxide 0.46

Ethane 0.72

Ethyl chloride 0.18

Ethylene 1.63

Ethylene dichloride 0.10

Methane 12.91 1

Vinyl chloride 31.74

1 Methane is added to the vent gas stream to ensure that the gas mixture is above the upper explosive limit (UEL) for safety.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 4

‐ 1 

# 4.0 C ONTINUOUS 

# M ONITORING 

# S YSTEMS

Monitoring equipment for the thermal oxidizers and associated air pollution control equipment includes

systems for process control and for stack gas analysis. This equipment enables the operators to

maintain safe operation in compliance with the permit limits. This section of the plan provides an

overview of the CMS associated with the thermal oxidizers and associated air pollution control systems.

These CMS are comprised of continuous process monitoring systems (CPMS) and CEMS.



## 4.1 C ONTINUOUS 

## P ROCESS 

## M ONITORING 

## S YSTEMS

Various CPMS are used in the thermal oxidizers and air pollution control systems to monitor operations.

The CPMS sample operating parameters without interruption and evaluate a detector response at least

once every 15 minutes. Table 4

‐ 1 provides a description of the CPMS that will be used during the

emission test.



### T ABLE 

### 4

‐ 1

C ONTINUOUS 

### P ROCESS 

### M ONITORING 

### S YSTEMS

I NSTRUMENT T AG N UMBER D ESCRIPTION U NITS

FI4286 Deer Park inlet vent flow rate lb/hr

TIC4528 & TIC4530 Combustion chamber temperature °C

FI42126A & FI42126B Scrubber liquid flow rate gpm

AI40032(A, B, C) & AI40033(A, B, C) Scrubber liquid pH Std units



## 4.2 C ONTINUOUS 

## E MISSIONS 

## M ONITORING 

## S YSTEMS

During the emission test, CEMS will be used to monitor concentrations of CO, THC, and methane in the

thermal oxidizer stack gas. In addition, an oxygen CEMS will be used to correct emission results to three

percent oxygen.

OxyVinyls operates a gas chromatograph (GC) on each thermal oxidizer. The GC measures vinyl chloride

concentration in each thermal oxidizer’s stack gas. In addition, a CO and oxygen CEMS is installed on

each thermal oxidizer stack.

METCO will operate temporary CEMS during the emission test. METCO will utilize a Thermo Electron

Corporation (TECO) Model 48 non

‐ dispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer to monitor CO concentrations in

the stack gas of one thermal oxidizer. The analyzer will be a single range design with a zero to 500 parts

per million by volume (ppmv) span value. The oxygen analyzer that will be used to correct emission

concentrations to three percent oxygen is a Teledyne Model 326 fuel cell type analyzer. The analyzer

will have a span of zero to 25 percent oxygen, by volume, on a dry basis. The THC and methane will beNovember 9, 2009

Page 4

‐ 2 monitored using a TECO Model 55C methane/total non

‐ methane analyzer (equipped with a GC column).

The analyzer will be a single range design with a zero to 50 ppmv span value. Gas moisture content

information will be needed to correct the THC and methane results to a dry basis. During the 30

‐ day

monitoring period, METCO will assume that the stack gas is saturated to determine moisture content.

During the stack test, Method 4 data from an isokinetic sampling train will be used to determine stack

gas moisture content.



## 4.3 Q UALITY 

## A SSURANCE

OxyVinyls will ensure that all CMS are installed and operating such that they can obtain representative

measurements of the process or emissions parameter. Prior to the emission test, OxyVinyls will verify

proper installation, operation, and calibration of each CMS. These activities will vary for each type of

instrument.



### 4.3.1 P ROCESS 

### M ONITORS

OxyVinyls performs routine calibration checks for the instruments listed in Table 4

‐ 1. Calibration

procedures follow OxyVinyls internal practices. OxyVinyls does not anticipate conducting additional

calibration checks for the instruments prior to the emission test, other than the inlet vent flow

monitoring as described below. The periodic checks should be sufficient to ensure accurate monitoring

data.

OxyVinyls is proposing to use measurements from the thermal oxidizer Deer Park Plant inlet vent gas

flow meters to calculate inlet HAP mass flow rates (pounds per hour) during the stack test. An orifice

plate and differential pressure transmitter is used to determine the flow rate in the Deer Park Plant vent

line routed to the thermal oxidizers. In addition, a pressure transmitter is located in the line to monitor

the pressure of the vent gas. The pressure transmitter is included in the annual calibration schedule.

OxyVinyls believes that the routine calibration of this device ensures accuracy of the measurements. For

the orifice plate and differential pressure transmitter, OxyVinyls will perform a calibration prior to the

stack test. The flow monitoring device will be calibrated to an accuracy of ± 1 percent of the span.



### 4.3.2 E MISSION 

### M ONITORS

METCO will operate the CEMS in accordance with USEPA Methods 10 and 25A. These methods refer to

USEPA Method 7E for calibration procedures. METCO will use the procedures identified in USEPA

Method 7E. Specifically, METCO will perform a system bias check after each test run to validate the

collected data. No adjustments to the measurement system (other than to maintain the target sampling

rate) will be made between the end of the run and the completion of the post

‐ run system bias check.

During the system bias check, a low

‐ level gas and an upscale gas will be injected into the sampling

system.November 9, 2009

Page 4

‐ 3 For the purposes of the 30

‐ day monitoring period, a test run will be a 24

‐ hour period. Therefore, the

system bias check will be performed once per day. For the stack testing, the system bias check will be

performed at the end of each test run.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 5

‐ 1 

# 5.0 E MISSION 

# T EST 

# O PERATING 

# C ONDITIONS

As described previously, this emission test is divided into two components

– a 30

‐ day monitoring period

for CO, non

‐ methane THC, and methane and a one

‐ condition, three

‐ run stack test. This section of the

plan discusses the operating conditions for these test components.



## 5.1 30

‐ D AY 

## M ONITORING 

## P ERIOD

The process and thermal oxidizer operations during the 30

‐ day monitoring period will depend on the

facility production schedules. The short time frame dictated by the ICR schedule means that the

production levels may be limited by the current economic recession, holiday work schedules, and typical

lower year

‐ end product demand. The window to conduct this test is short because of reduced

operations during the holidays and beyond. Every effort will be made to operate the Deer Park Plant at

the highest possible rates within these constraints.

During the 30

‐ day monitoring period, the thermal oxidizers will be operated with all of the inlet vent

streams, including the vent from the Deer Park Plant and the vents from the LaPorte production

processes. It is not possible to operate a thermal oxidizer with just the Deer Park Plant vent for this

extended period without disrupting facility operations.



## 5.2 S TACK 

## T EST

It is OxyVinyls’ intent to provide USEPA with emission data that is representative of the complete

operating range of the Deer Park Plant production units. The testing will characterize the entire cycle of

the batch processes under “normal” operation and will not include startup, shutdown, or malfunction

emissions.



### 5.2.1 P ROCESS 

### U NITS

OxyVinyls will make every attempt to ensure that both Deer Park PVC production lines are operating to

the maximum extent possible as dictated by the existing production schedule during the stack test. We

believe that this will provide loadings to the thermal oxidizers that will represent the upper end of the

normal operating range for the Deer Park PVC Plant.



### 5.2.2 M ISCELLANEOUS 

### F UGITIVE 

### S OURCES

Emissions from some of the miscellaneous sources will be sampled and analyzed during the stack test.

These sources will be operated to demonstrate typical emission conditions. The PVC screen oversized

particle handling is a relatively passive operation. The box will be sampled while the materials are being

added. Emission sampling for the hydroblasting operations will occur when one reactor is being

hydroblasted.November 9, 2009

Page 5

‐ 2 

### 5.2.3 T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER

Both thermal oxidizers will be operational during the stack test to handle the vent loadings. The Deer

Park Plant vents will be routed to one thermal oxidizer, while the other vents from the LaPorte plant will

be routed to the other unit. All testing will be performed on the thermal oxidizer that is receiving only

the Deer Park Plant PVC vent. This scenario will provide for emission samples that are representative of

the PVC production operations not the other operations present at the LaPorte Plant.

OxyVinyls will operate the thermal oxidizer at conditions that are consistent with normal operations.

We believe this is the most appropriate operating condition for the stack test to generate data for the

PVC ICR. The thermal oxidizer will be operated at the low end of the normal combustion temperature

operating range. Table 5

‐ 1 presents the typical operating conditions and the current permit limits for

the thermal oxidizer.



### T ABLE 

### 5

‐ 1

T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER 

### T YPICAL 

### O PERATING 

### C ONDITIONS

O PERATING P ARAMETER U NITS P ERMIT L IMITS T YPICAL R ANGE

Combustion chamber temperature °C > 849 880

– 965

Deer Park Plant inlet vent gas flow rate lb/hr NA 1 0

– 1,500

Other inlet vent gases flow rate lb/hr NA 30,000

– 90,000

1 Not applicable. There is no permit limit for this parameter.



### 5.2.4 A IR 

### P OLLUTION 

### C ONTROL 

### S YSTEM

The air pollution control system will also be operated at conditions that are consistent with normal

operations. Table 5

‐ 2 presents the typical operating conditions and the current permit limits for the air

pollution control system.



### T ABLE 

### 5

‐ 2

A IR 

### P OLLUTION 

### C ONTROL 

### S YSTEM 

### T YPICAL 

### O PERATING 

### C ONDITIONS

O PERATING P ARAMETER U NITS P ERMIT L IMITS T YPICAL R ANGE

Scrubber lower section liquid flow rate gpm > 200 350

‐ 600

Scrubber upper section liquid flow rate gpm NA 1 2,600

– 3,000

Scrubber upper section liquid pH Std units > 8

(hourly average) 8

– 9

1 Not applicable. There is no permit limit for this parameter.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 6

‐ 1 

# 6.0 D ATA IN 

# L IEU OF 

# T ESTING

OxyVinyls is proposing to submit data from previous stack tests to minimize the required sampling and

analysis for this stack test. Since the LaPorte thermal oxidizers have been regulated under the HON,

OxyVinyls has a long history of conducting regulatory compliance tests on these control devices. A total

of 15 tests, most on both of the oxidizers, have been run over a twenty

‐ year period that characterizes

performance and emissions to the atmosphere. A summary of these stack tests is provided in Appendix

D. In addition, in accordance with HON and Title V permit conditions, the site has been adhering to

parametric operating limitations on the thermal oxidizers and scrubber systems for over a decade.

Also, as explained in Section 3, OxyVinyls has extensive data on the Deer Park vent gas characteristics.

We are proposing to use this data in lieu of sampling the inlet vents during the stack test. In addition,

we are proposing to use HCl/Cl

2 and dioxins and furans (D/F) emission data and destruction efficiency

determinations from previous stack tests in lieu of performing additional testing for these parameters.

This section summarizes the previous stack test results for HCl/Cl

2 , D/F, and destruction efficiency. The

complete test reports are included in Appendix D.



## 6.1 H YDROGEN 

## C HLORIDE AND 

## C HLORINE

An emission test program was conducted on the two thermal oxidizers in June 2008, after the scrubbers

were rebuilt. USEPA Method 26A was performed to determine the HCl/Cl

2 emissions from each unit in

order to demonstrate compliance with the facility’s operating permit. In addition, the HCl/Cl

2 removal

efficiency was determined for each unit.

Table 6

‐ 1 presents the results of the HCl/Cl

2 emission tests. More detailed information on the stack test

is provided in the complete report in Appendix D.



### T ABLE 

### 6

‐ 1

H YDROGEN 

### C HLORIDE AND 

### C HLORINE 

### S TACK 

### T EST 

### R ESULTS

U NIT T EST R UN H YDROGEN C HLORIDE C HLORINE R EMOVAL

E FFICIENCY ( DRY PPMV ) ( LB / HR ) ( DRY PPMV ) ( LB / HR )

Thermal Oxidizer A 1 8.3 1.68 4.6 1.81 99.9

2 8.1 1.65 4.9 1.96 99.9

3 5.4 1.08 3.4 1.32 99.9

Average 7.3 1.47 4.3 1.70 99.9

Thermal Oxidizer B 1 2.0 0.46 2.8 1.25 99.9

2 3.6 0.82 3.9 1.72 99.9

3 3.7 0.84 6.0 2.66 99.9

Average 3.1 0.71 4.2 1.88 99.9November 9, 2009

Page 6

‐ 2 

## 6.2 D IOXINS AND 

## F URANS

An emission test program was conducted on the two thermal oxidizers in December 1995. This was part

of the Vinyl Institute’s (VI) industry

‐ wide characterization study. Sampling and analytical methods were

reviewed and approved by USEPA personnel prior to the study. USEPA Method 23 was performed to

determine the D/F emissions from each unit.

Table 6

‐ 2 presents the results of the D/F emission tests. More detailed information on the stack test is

provided in the complete report in Appendix D.



### T ABLE 

### 6

‐ 2

D IOXIN AND 

### F URAN 

### S TACK 

### T EST 

### R ESULTS

A NALYTES U NITS 1 T HERMAL O XIDIZER A T HERMAL O XIDIZER B

R UN 1 R UN 2 R UN 3 R UN 1 R UN 2 R UN 3

2,3,7,8

‐ TCDD ng/dscm < 1.14E

‐ 03 < 8.52E

‐ 04 < 2.24E

‐ 03 < 2.30E

‐ 03 < 1.28E

‐ 03 < 1.71E

‐ 03

1,2,3,7,8

‐ PeCDD ng/dscm 5.45E

‐ 03 3.51E

‐ 03 4.48E

‐ 03 1.02E

‐ 02 2.89E

‐ 03 3.62E

‐ 03

1,2,3,4,7,8

‐ HxCDD ng/dscm 1.17E

‐ 02 5.26E

‐ 03 3.98E

‐ 03 1.16E

‐ 02 5.06E

‐ 03 3.62E

‐ 03

1,2,3,6,7,8

‐ HxCDD ng/dscm 2.15E

‐ 02 1.00E

‐ 02 9.20E

‐ 03 1.67E

‐ 02 9.15E

‐ 03 5.43E

‐ 03

1,2,3,7,8,9

‐ HxCDD ng/dscm 1.04E

‐ 02 6.02E

‐ 03 5.47E

‐ 03 1.31E

‐ 02 4.82E

‐ 03 3.62E

‐ 03

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

‐ HpCDD ng/dscm 2.85E

‐ 01 6.52E

‐ 02 5.47E

‐ 02 1.19E

‐ 01 1.08E

‐ 01 2.58E

‐ 02

OCDD ng/dscm 1.06E+00 1.35E

‐ 01 1.14E

‐ 01 2.84E

‐ 01 4.09E

‐ 01 5.69E

‐ 02

2,3,7,8

‐ TCDF ng/dscm 5.45E

‐ 03 3.26E

‐ 03 7.71E

‐ 03 1.22E

‐ 02 1.97E

‐ 03 3.88E

‐ 03

1,2,3,7,8

‐ PeCDF ng/dscm 1.74E

‐ 02 8.02E

‐ 03 2.98E

‐ 02 3.12E

‐ 02 9.39E

‐ 03 1.03E

‐ 02

2,3,4,7,8

‐ PeCDF ng/dscm 2.59E

‐ 02 9.78E

‐ 03 2.26E

‐ 02 3.12E

‐ 02 1.11E

‐ 02 1.01E

‐ 02

1,2,3,4,7,8

‐ HxCDF ng/dscm 4.41E

‐ 02 2.08E

‐ 02 3.23E

‐ 02 4.54E

‐ 02 2.17E

‐ 02 1.60E

‐ 02

1,2,3,6,7,8

‐ HxCDF ng/dscm 4.15E

‐ 02 1.50E

‐ 02 2.74E

‐ 02 4.26E

‐ 02 1.97E

‐ 02 1.24E

‐ 02

1,2,3,7,8,9

‐ HxCDF ng/dscm 1.22E

‐ 02 < 1.78E

‐ 03 6.96E

‐ 03 1.08E

‐ 02 5.30E

‐ 03 < 2.33E

‐ 03

2,3,4,6,7,8

‐ HxCDF ng/dscm 7.00E

‐ 02 1.65E

‐ 02 1.74E

‐ 02 3.69E

‐ 02 2.65E

‐ 02 1.11E

‐ 02

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

‐ HpCDF ng/dscm 4.15E

‐ 01 1.21E

‐ 01 7.71E

‐ 02 1.93E

‐ 01 1.83E

‐ 01 9.31E

‐ 02

1,2,3,4,7,8,9

‐ HpCDF ng/dscm 3.63E

‐ 02 9.28E

‐ 03 1.12E

‐ 02 2.13E

‐ 02 1.59E

‐ 02 6.98E

‐ 03

OCDF ng/dscm 3.89E

‐ 01 1.05E

‐ 01 4.72E

‐ 02 1.36E

‐ 01 2.41E

‐ 01 8.01E

‐ 02

Total ng/dscm 3.68E+00 1.09E+00 1.13E+00 2.28E+00 1.54E+00 9.01E+00

TEQ ng/dscm 4.70E

‐ 02 1.70E

‐ 02 2.77E

‐ 02 4.49E

‐ 02 2.06E

‐ 02 1.44E

‐ 02

1 Concentrations corrected to seven percent oxygen.

As shown in the table, D/F emissions from the thermal oxidizers are very low. These results are

consistent with other combustion units with wet adiabatic quench designs. We do not believe there

would be any benefit to collecting additional D/F emission data for these units.



## 6.3 D ESTRUCTION 

## E FFICIENCY

In 1999, a stack test was performed for each thermal oxidizer to determine the destruction efficiency for

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition, major HAPs were measured on the oxidizer inlet andNovember 9, 2009

Page 6

‐ 3 outlet. USEPA Method 18 was used to determine the VOC emissions. In addition, USEPA Method 25A

was performed to determine THC emissions. The stack test demonstrated destruction efficiencies

exceeding 99.99 percent for both thermal oxidizers. More detailed information on the stack test is

provided in the complete report in Appendix D.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 7

‐ 1 

# 7.0 S AMPLING AND 

# A NALYSIS

Sampling and analysis performed during the emission test will provide the emission information

requested in USEPA’s ICR. The emission test includes a 30

‐ day monitoring period for CO, THC, and

methane from the thermal oxidizer system stack, emission determinations for miscellaneous sources

and activities, and a one

‐ condition, three

‐ run test performed for one of the thermal oxidizers. This

section describes the sampling and analytical methods that will be used for the emission test. Since

most of the proposed methods are standard reference methods, only brief descriptions are presented.

More detail on the methods can be found in the QAPP found in Appendix A. Sample holding times will

be consistent with the analytical requirements for the methods used.



## 7.1 30

‐ D AY 

## M ONITORING 

## P ERIOD

During the 30

‐ day period, the stack gas from one of the thermal oxidizers will be monitored for CO, THC,

methane, and oxygen concentrations. The following methods will be used:

3⁄4 A portable CEMS, utilizing USEPA Method 3A, operated by METCO, to monitor the concentration of

oxygen in the stack gas;

3⁄4 A portable CEMS, utilizing USEPA Method 10, operated by METCO, to monitor the concentration of

CO in the stack gas; and

3⁄4 A portable CEMS, utilizing USEPA Methods 25A, operated by METCO, to monitor the concentrations

of non

‐ methane THC and methane in the stack gas.

As an alternative to using USEPA Method 4 for moisture determination, OxyVinyls will assume that the

stack gas is saturated. The typical stack gas temperature will be used to determine the moisture content

at the saturation point.

Table 7

‐ 1 summarizes the stack gas samples to be taken, the parameters to be measured, and the

duration of measurement.



### T ABLE 

### 7

‐ 1

30

‐ D AY 

### M ONITORING 

### P ERIOD 

### M ONITORING 

### M ETHODS

M ONITORING M ETHOD 1 M ONITORING D URATION A NALYTICAL P ARAMETER

Alternative to USEPA Method 4 Not applicable Moisture

USEPA Method 3A Continuous for 30

‐ days Oxygen

USEPA Method 10 Continuous for 30

‐ days Carbon monoxide

USEPA Method 25A Continuous for 30

‐ days Total non

‐ methane hydrocarbons and

methane

1 USEPA Method refers to New Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures, Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60.November 9, 2009

Page 7

‐ 2 

## 7.2 E MISSION 

## D ETERMINATIONS FOR 

## M ISCELLANEOUS 

## S OURCES

Emissions from the PVC screen oversized particle handling, the VCM filter removal operations, and

hydroblasting of the reactors will be determined using a combination of emission testing and mass

balance calculations.



### 7.2.1 P OLYVINYL 

### C HLORIDE 

### S CREEN 

### O VERSIZED 

### P ARTICLE 

### H ANDLING 

### O PERATIONS

After being dried, stripped PVC resin goes through a set of shaker screens. Large particles, which do not

meet product specifications flow to oversize boxes. There is a potential for HAP emissions from this

operation when the material is loaded into the boxes. The oversized PVC is predominantly

product

‐ grade material. This material has gone through stripping, but since the particle size is larger,

low concentrations of HAPs could be volatilized.

To determine the emissions from the PVC screen oversized particle handling operations, OxyVinlyls will

perform emission sampling. The vapor space of a box will be sampled for a select list of organic HAPs.

This list was developed using process knowledge of the raw materials and impurities present in the

production process. Three replicate runs will be performed. A Summa Canister sampling method will be

used with USEPA Method TO

‐ 15 for measurement of targeted organic HAP emissions. The

concentrations of the HAPs will be determined. The gas volume of the canister will be used to convert

the HAP concentrations to emission rates in pounds per hour (lb/hr).

Table 7

‐ 2 summarizes the PVC screen oversized particle operations gas samples to be taken, the

parameters to be measured, and the frequency or duration of measurement.



### T ABLE 

### 7

‐ 2

S CREEN 

### O VERSIZED 

### P ARTICLE 

### H ANDLING 

### O PERATIONS 

### G AS 

### S AMPLING AND 

### A NALYTICAL 

### M ETHODS

S AMPLING M ETHOD S AMPLING F REQUENCY /

D URATION A NALYTICAL P ARAMETER A NALYTICAL M ETHOD 1

Summa Canister 1 hour (minimum) Targeted hazardous air

pollutants 2 USEPA Method TO

‐ 15

1 USEPA Method refers to New Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures, Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60.

2 See Appendix B for specific lists of target analytes.



### 7.2.2 V INYL 

### C HLORIDE 

### M ONOMER 

### F ILTER 

### R EMOVAL 

### O PERATIONS

VCM is charged from the pure VCM storage sphere and/or recovered VCM reclaim tanks, using

dedicated VCM charge pumps, to the VCM charge filters prior to charging to the reactors. The VCM

quantity charged is measured by flow meters. Whenever differential pressure readings indicate that the

filters are plugged, the charge filter cylinders are inspected, and the filters are replaced if needed. Vinyl

Chloride National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) vessel opening procedures

are followed before the cylinders are opened for inspection and/or replacement of the filters. VCM is

evacuated from the isolated VCM filter, followed by three hours of steam sweep and 1.5 hours of airNovember 9, 2009

Page 7

‐ 3 sweep to reduce the VCM concentration on the filter cartridge. The evacuated VCM is routed to the

VCM recovery system.

HAP emissions would occur when the charge filter cylinders are opened and the filters are exposed.

Emission rates can be determined by using the periodically measured HAP concentrations in VCM and

the volume of the cylinder. The VCM concentration is known because of the measurements taken

according to NESHAP requirements for opening the vessel. Other HAP concentrations can be

determined using ratios of measured HAP concentrations in VCM to VCM concentrations. OxyVinyls is

proposing to use these calculations to determine emission rates for this emission source. Calculations

will be provided in the emission test report.



### 7.2.3 H YDROBLASTING OF 

### R EACTORS

The reactors are hydroblasted to clean the walls periodically when issues with PVC resin quality arise.

Prior to conducting the hydroblast operation, VCM is recovered from the reactor, and the vessel is

steamed and purged before opening. High pressure water is sprayed onto the walls of the reactor and

agitators within the open vessel. Any chips and chunks dislodged during the cleaning process are

collected and transferred to chunks collections containers.

To determine the emissions from hydroblasting operations, OxyVinyls will perform emission sampling.

The vapor space of a reactor will be sampled for a select list of organic HAPs. This list was developed

using process knowledge of the raw materials and impurities present in the production process. Three

replicate runs will be performed. A Summa Canister sampling method will be used with USEPA

Method TO

‐ 15 for measurement of targeted organic HAP emissions. The concentrations of the HAPs

will be determined. The gas volume of the canister will be used to convert the HAP concentrations to

emission rates in lb/hr.

Table 7

‐ 3 summarizes the hydroblasting operations gas samples to be taken, the parameters to be

measured, and the frequency or duration of measurement.



### T ABLE 

### 7

‐ 3

H YDROBLASTING 

### O PERATIONS 

### G AS 

### S AMPLING AND 

### A NALYTICAL 

### M ETHODS

S AMPLING M ETHOD S AMPLING F REQUENCY /

D URATION A NALYTICAL P ARAMETER A NALYTICAL M ETHOD 1

Summa Canister 1 hour (minimum) Targeted hazardous air

pollutants 2 USEPA Method TO

‐ 15

1 USEPA Method refers to New Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures, Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60.

2 See Appendix B for specific lists of target analytes.



## 7.3 S TACK 

## T EST

During the stack test, the thermal oxidizer stack gas will be sampled. In addition, flow rate data for the

Deer Park Plant inlet vent gas will be collected.November 9, 2009

Page 7

‐ 4 

### 7.3.1 T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER 

### I NLET 

### V ENT 

### G AS

The inlet vent gas flow rate will be determined using USEPA Method 2D, utilizing the facility’s flow rate

monitor (orifice plate and differential pressure transmitter). This data will be used with the historical

vent characterization data to determine inlet parameters.



### 7.3.2 T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER 

### S TACK 

### G AS

The thermal oxidizer stack gas will be sampled for CO, non

‐ methane THC, methane, vapor phase organic

HAPs, speciated volatile organic HAPs, and speciated semivolatile organic HAPs. Three replicate runs

will be performed. The following sampling methods will be used:

3⁄4 USEPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, and 4 for determination of stack sampling traverse points, gas flow rate,

composition, and moisture content;

3⁄4 USEPA Method 10 to monitor the concentration of CO in the vent gas;

3⁄4 USEPA Method 25A to monitor the concentration of non

‐ methane THC and methane in the vent gas;

3⁄4 A modified USEPA Method 320 sampling train for measurement of vapor phase organic HAP

emissions;

3⁄4 An SW

‐ 846 Method 0010 sampling train for measurement of speciated semivolatile organic HAP

emissions; and

3⁄4 An SW

‐ 846 Method 0031 sampling train for measurement of speciated volatile organic HAP

emissions.

Table 7

‐ 4 summarizes the stack gas samples to be taken, the parameters to be measured, and the

frequency of measurement.



### T ABLE 

### 7

‐ 4

S TACK 

### G AS 

### S AMPLING AND 

### A NALYTICAL 

### M ETHODS

S AMPLING M ETHOD S AMPLING F REQUENCY /

D URATION A NALYTICAL P ARAMETER A NALYTICAL M ETHOD 1

USEPA Methods 1, 2, 3A,

and 4 Not applicable Traverse points, stack flow,

composition, and moisture Not applicable

USEPA Method 10 Continuous Carbon monoxide USEPA Method 10

USEPA Method 25A Continuous Total non

‐ methane

hydrocarbons and methane USEPA Method 25A

USEPA Method 320

(modified) 4 hours (minimum) Vapor phase organic

hazardous air pollutants 2 USEPA Method 320

SW

‐ 846 Method 0010 4 hours (minimum) Speciated semivolatile

organic hazardous air

pollutants 2 SW

‐ 846 Method 8270D

SW

‐ 846 Method 0031 4 tube sets, 40 minutes per

tube set Speciated volatile organic

hazardous air pollutants 2 SW

‐ 846 Method 8260B

1 SW

‐ 846 refers to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition, November 1986 and Updates. USEPA Method refers to New

Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures, Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60.

2 See Appendix B for specific lists of target analytes.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 8

‐ 1 

# 8.0 S CHEDULE

USEPA’s ICR requires all test data to be submitted by February 28, 2010. This section of the plan

discusses the project schedule and the stack testing schedule.



## 8.1 P ROJECT 

## S CHEDULE

The proposed project schedule is shown in Figure 7

‐ 1. Key project milestones include:

3⁄4 A plant shutdown is schedule for October 30 through November 14, 2009. This shutdown will delay

the start of the 30

‐ day monitoring period and the stack test. These activities cannot start until after

the shutdown is completed, and all processes have returned to normal operations. After the

shutdown, both production lines will only be operated until December 8, which leaves a small

window of time for the stack testing.

3⁄4 The stack test for the thermal oxidizers and the miscellaneous sources is scheduled to begin during

the week of November 30, 2009.

3⁄4 The 30

‐ day monitoring period for CO, non

‐ methane THC, and methane is tentatively scheduled to

begin during the week of November 20, 2009. The B production line will be shutdown during a

portion of this test period.

3⁄4 We anticipated that test data will be available three to four weeks after the completion of all testing

activities.

3⁄4 A thorough quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review will be performed after all data is

received and before it is submitted to USEPA.

As these milestones show, it will be very difficult for OxyVinyls to meet the ICR schedule for data

submittal. We will make every attempt to submit data in a timely fashion. If all the data cannot be

compiled by February 28, 2010, a report summarizing the results will be submitted.November 9, 2009

Page 8

‐ 2 

### F IGURE 

### 7

‐ 1

P ROJECT 

### T IMELINENovember 9, 2009

Page 8

‐ 3 

## 8.2 S TACK 

## T EST 

## S CHEDULE

The stack test sampling effort will require four days to complete. During this period, sampling

equipment and instruments will be prepared and calibrated, supplies will be brought onsite, and

sampling locations will be prepared. Although the onsite activities will dictate the actual timing, a

preliminary schedule for the thermal oxidizer testing is presented in Table 8

‐ 1. The miscellaneous

sources will be sampled during the same event. The runs will be conducted throughout the week, as

time allows.



### T ABLE 

### 8

‐ 1

T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZER 

### S TACK 

### T EST 

### S CHEDULE

D AY S TART S TOP A CTIVITY

1

‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ Set

‐ up of sampling equipment and pre

‐ test meetings

2 08:00 09:00 Pretest activities for Run 1

2 09:00 14:00 Run 1

3 08:00 09:00 Pretest activities for Run 2

3 09:00 14:00 Run 2

4 08:00 09:00 Pretest activities for Run 3

4 09:00 14:00 Run 3

4 14:00

‐ ‐ ‐ Break down sampling equipment

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Page 9

‐ 1 

# 9.0 R EPORT

The emission test report will be submitted to USEPA in electronic format. In addition, the required

emission test template will be completed. The test report will follow the following basic outline:

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Summary Of Results

3.0 Discussion Of Results

4.0 Description Of Process

5.0 Description Of Sampling Locations

6.0 Sampling And Analytical Procedures

7.0 Description Of Tests

Appendix A Location of Sampling Points

Appendix B Source Emissions Calculations

Appendix C Calibration Data

Appendix D Field Testing Data

Appendix E Analytical Data

Appendix F Plant Operational Data

Appendix G Chain of Custody

Appendix H Resumes of Test Personnel

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Appendix A 

# Appendix A:

Q UALITY 

# A SSURANCE 

# P ROJECT 

# P LAN

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

# Appendix B:

T ARGET 

# A NALYTESNovember 9, 2009

Appendix B 

### T ABLE 

### B

‐ 1

T ARGETED 

### H AZARDOUS 

### A IR 

### P OLLUTANTS FOR 

### M ISCELLANEOUS 

### S OURCES 1

A NALYTE A NALYTE

Acetaldehyde Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

Benzene Toluene

Chloroform 2,2,4

‐ Trimethylpentane

Cumene (isopropylbenzene) Vinyl chloride

Ethyl chloride (chloroethane) Vinylidene chloride (1,1

‐ dichloroethene)

Ethylene dichloride (1,2

‐ dichloroethane) Xylene (total)

Ethylidene dichloride (1,1

‐ dichloroethane)

1 Miscellaneous sources include PVC screen oversized particle handling operations and hydroblasting. These analytes will be determined

using USEPA Method TO

‐ 15.



### T ABLE 

### B

‐ 2

V APOR 

### P HASE 

### O RGANIC 

### H AZARDOUS 

### A IR 

### P OLLUTANTS 1

A NALYTE A NALYTE

Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde

Ethyl chloride (chloroethane) Methanol

Ethylene dichloride (1,2

‐ dichloroethane) Phenol

Methyl chloride (chloromethane) Vinyl chloride

1 These analytes will be determined using USEPA Method 320 (FTIR).November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

### T ABLE 

### B

‐ 3

S PECIATED 

### S EMIVOLATILE 

### O RGANIC 

### H AZARDOUS 

### A IR 

### P OLLUTANTS 1

A NALYTE A NALYTE

Acenaphthene 4,6

‐ Dinitro

‐ o

‐ cresol

Acenaphthylene 2,4

‐ Dinitrophenol

Acetophenone 2,4

‐ Dinitrotoluene

Aniline 1,2

‐ Diphenylhydrazine

Anthracene Fluoranthene

Benzidine Fluorene

Benzo(a)anthracene Hexachlorobenzene

Benzo(a)pyrene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Hexachloroethane

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Indeno(1,2,3 cd)pyrene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Isophorone

Bis(2

‐ ethylhexyl)phthalate Naphthalene

Cresol/Cresylic acid (mixed isomers) Nitrobenzene

o

‐ Cresol 4

‐ Nitrophenol

m

‐ Cresol N

‐ Nitrosodimethylamine

p

‐ Cresol Pentachloronitrobenzene

Chrysene Pentachlorophenol

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Phenanthrene

Dibenzofuran Phenol

Dibutyl phthalate Pyrene

3,3'

‐ Dichlorobenzidine 2,4,5

‐ Trichlorophenol

Dichloroethyl ether 2,4,6

‐ Trichlorophenol

Dimethyl phthalate

1 These analytes will be determined using SW

‐ 846 Method 8270D.November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

### T ABLE 

### B

‐ 4

S PECIATED 

### V OLATILE 

### O RGANIC 

### H AZARDOUS 

### A IR 

### P OLLUTANTS 1

A NALYTE A NALYTE

Acrylonitrile Methyl chloroform

Benzene Methyl isobutyl ketone

Bromoform Methylene chloride

Carbon disulfide Naphthalene

Carbon tetrachloride Propylene dichloride

Chlorobenzene Styrene

Chloroform 1,1,2,2

‐ Tetrachloroethane

Cumene Tetrachloroethylene

1,2

‐ Dibromo

‐ 3

‐ chloropropane Toluene

1,4

‐ Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4

‐ Trichlorobenzene

1,3

‐ Dichloropropene 1,1,2

‐ Trichloroethane

Ethylbenzene Trichloroethylene

Ethyl chloride Vinyl chloride

Ethylene dibromide Vinylidene chloride

Ethylene dichloride (1,2

‐ dichloroethane) Xylene (mixed isomers)

Ethylidene dichloride o

‐ Xylene

Hexachlorobutadiene m

‐ Xylene

Methyl bromide p

‐ Xylene

Methyl chloride

1 These analytes will be determined using SW

‐ 846 Method 8260B.

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

# Appendix C:

D EER 

# P ARK 

# P LANT 

# V ENT 

# C HARACTERIZATIONDeerParkPlanVentCharacterizationDataDATETIME BALANCECARBONDIOXIDECARBONMONOXIDE EDC ETHANEETHYLCHLORIDE ETHYLENE METHANE NITROGEN OXYGENVINYLCHLORIDE11/1/20071:00 0 18.97 1.02 0 0 0.17 0 0.08 28.24 9.98 41.5411/8/20079:48 0.49 34.78 0.81 0.04 0 0.22 0 0.06 19.63 5.52 38.4511/15/20075:21 0.43 7.49 0.32 0.05 0.35 0.17 0 8.2 43.57 16.68 22.7211/29/20075:31 0 14.02 2.17 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.11 3.48 42.26 10.33 27.312/1/20071:00 0.54 14.61 0 0.04 0 0.2 0 0 36.13 11.66 36.8312/6/20077:45 0 20.01 0.09 0.02 0 0.19 0.2 0.17 33.74 10.18 35.412/20/20075:17 0 1.87 0 0.01 0.94 0.05 0.31 49.43 26.49 7.91 12.9912/27/20075:29 0 1.4 0.11 0.01 0.89 0.01 0 37.45 41.74 14.77 3.611/3/20085:37 0.23 4.13 0.16 0.09 0.5 0.15 0.12 27.7 30.3 9.05 27.571/16/200813:36 0.23 12.2 0.76 0.04 0 0.13 0 0.08 48.24 15.2 23.121/24/20085:53 0 9.51 0.43 0.22 1.08 0.1 0 43.02 24.69 8.44 12.52/14/20089:05 0 16.95 0.52 0.04 0.06 0.27 0.21 3.05 32.33 9.26 37.312/21/20087:10 0.31 9.94 0.54 0.1 0.84 0.2 0.64 16.49 41.34 10.18 19.412/22/20089:43 0 8.8 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.94 47.68 15.25 27.032/28/20088:13 0 34.16 0.24 0.05 0 0.19 0 0.04 16.69 4.89 43.213/6/20086:08 0.32 6.96 2.3 0.0122 0.13 0.09085 0.77 0.07 58.34 17.41 13.39733/12/200814:08 0 14.54 2.21 0.00675 0 0.22655 0.18 0.34 35.98 6.95 38.95883/13/20085:38 0 4.72 0.48 0.0531 0.89 0.18013 0 47.14 19.56 0 26.674953/14/20086:12 0.05 7.72 0.49 0.9158 0.3 0.27258 4.02 16.17 37.74 6.14 24.802244/21/20088:03 0.81 0.1 0 0.00184 0 0.02143 0.22 0.16 86.84 11.83 0.013495/7/200814:22 0.35 5.27 0 0.06298 0.57 0.14868 0 26.74 42.71 9.28 14.872095/13/20088:21 0 20.07 0 0.06649 0.97 0.27467 3.8 6.35 31.68 7.32 28.855055/13/200811:49 0 15.29 0 0.17193 0.09 0.26901 0.23 0.34 38.27 10.97 33.261255/13/200816:00 0.3 0.28 0.76 0.34176 0.15 0.20897 11.62 0.36 45.46 10 30.525625/14/20082:07 0.6 0 0.56 0.02325 0 0.39192 20.14 0.42 22.41 5.52 49.944425/14/20088:51 0 21.09 0.85 0.22961 0 0.22889 0.09 0.32 35.05 10.48 31.193655/14/200813:04 0 18.68 0.73 0.61974 0.19 0.27201 0.28 0.25 42.34 10.63 24.684825/14/200816:53 0.32 0 0.14 0.22354 0.08 0.09128 24.28 0.11 35.78 11.59 27.378165/14/200821:36 0.83 0 0 0.44419 0.27 0.17666 0 0.12 26.53 8.05 63.576285/15/200812:08 0.05 9.38 1.11 0.53547 0 0.3088 0.29 0.02 52.83 9.17 24.23125/15/200817:09‐8.05 30.12 0.12 0.08 0 0.17 0 0.04 29.99 8.14 39.397047/1/20081:00 0.36 3.73 0.08 0.02 0 0.27668 0 0.51 42.61 12.85 39.576629/1/20081:00 0 5.41 0.14 0.03551 0.04 0.34925 0.14 0.22 29.15 5.64 58.878219/20/200811:41‐0.3 1.49 0.18 0.00049 0.12 0.17717 5.08 0.11 9.8 2.63 80.7108910/1/20081:00 0 4.5 0.17 0.05021 21.34 0.171 0 0 20.36 11.66 41.75158November9,2009AppendixCDeerParkPlanVentCharacterizationDataDATETIME BALANCECARBONDIOXIDECARBONMONOXIDE EDC ETHANEETHYLCHLORIDE ETHYLENE METHANE NITROGEN OXYGENVINYLCHLORIDE10/10/200810:46 0 2.95 0.08 0.00071 0.26 0.42176 0.06 26.1 5.97 2.03 62.1265310/10/200820:20 0 1.86 0.07 0 0 0.09259 0 41.95 23.92 8.79 23.3193210/10/200823:59 0 1.57 0.09 0 0 0.0862 0 24.23 38.84 13.98 21.1979210/11/20083:52 0 2.53 0.12 0.0021 0 0.18237 0 18.58 26.59 9.59 42.4114110/11/20087:37 0 2.52 0.05 0.00539 0.96 0.13691 0 67.42 2.01 0.49 26.4104810/24/20087:07 0 3.75 0.15 0.03088 1.13 0.10636 3.08 56.83 8.77 1.14 25.002210/27/20086:36 0 5.97 0.66 0.02633 0.11 0.16994 2.55 1.69 39.74 10.65 38.4421610/30/20088:21 0 1.94 0.15 0.00045 0.04 0.44816 1.4 0.07 11.99 1.98 81.9801412/3/20084:00 0.04 1.59 0.05 0.0049 0.82 0.07392 0 41.39 24.16 9.51 22.373195/9/20096:12 0 22.21 0.46 0.00337 0.87 0.13283 0 13.65 18.27 6.38 38.024415/16/200922:10 0 12.81 0.85 0.01558 0.55 0.07387 0 24.61 26.43 7.84 26.823497/1/20094:00 0 11.6 1.79 0.00404 0 0.08344 0 0.26 52.29 9.84 24.146138/5/20094:00 0.31 2.97 0.18 0.08862 0.56 0.03384 0.06 25.21 47.87 14.19 8.52869/2/20094:02 0.01 5.39 0.28 0.00192 0.01 0.0553 0.01 0.39 59.9 21.15 12.80229November9,2009AppendixC

### O XY 

### V INYLS



### , LP

– D EER 

### P ARK 

### PVC P LANT

November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

# Appendix D:

P REVIOUS 

# E MISSION 

# T EST 

# R EPORTSNovember 9, 2009

Appendix B 

### T ABLE 

### D

‐ 1

S UMMARY OF 

### L A 

### P ORTE 

### T HERMAL 

### O XIDIZERS 

### S TACK 

### T ESTS

D ATE P URPOSE T EST P ARAMETERS T EST M ETHODS C OMMENTS

Jun

‐ 2008 Evaluate scrubber

performance HCl/Cl

2 Methods 1, 2, 3B, 4,

26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

May

‐ 2008 Evaluate scrubber

performance HCl/Cl

2 Methods 1, 2, 3B, 4,

26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

Mar

‐ 2008 Evaluate scrubber

performance HCl/Cl

2 Methods 1, 2, 3B, 4,

26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

Aug

‐ 2004 Scrubber performance test HCl, HBr, Cl 2 , Br 2 Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

Jan

‐ 1999 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, VCM, HCl,

Cl 2 , THC, % DRE Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

7E, 10, 18, 25A, 26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, normal

load, inlet samples on vents

including Deer Park vent

Feb

‐ 1999 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, VCM, HCl,

Cl 2 , THC, % DRE Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

7E, 10, 18, 25A, 26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, normal

load, inlet samples on vents

including Deer Park vent

Dec

‐ 1998 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, VCM, EDC,

HCl, Cl 2 , THC, % DRE Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

7E, 10, 18, 25A, 26A 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

Mar

‐ 1997 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, VOC, SO 2 , PM, VCM, % DRE Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

5, 6C, 7E, 10, 25A,

26A, 106 3 runs, 72 minutes per run,

tested A & B

May

‐ 1996 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, VOC, SO 2 , PM, VCM, % DRE Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

5, 6C, 7E, 10, 25A,

26A, 106 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

Dec

‐ 1995 Thermal oxidizer

dioxin/furan test D/F Methods 1, 2, 3, 4,

23 3 runs, 180 minutes per run,

tested A & B

Mar

‐ 1994 Thermal oxidizer

performance test Cl 2 , NO

x , CO, O 2 ,

CO 2 , HCl, VOC Method 1, 2, 3A, 4,

7E, 10, 19 TACB

‐ 10,

TO

‐ 14 3 runs, 30 minutes per run

May

‐ 1991 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, O 2 , CO 2 , PM, THC, SO 2 , Cl 2 , EDC, VCM Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

5, 7E, 10, 18, 25A,

106, TACB

‐ 10 3 runs, 1

‐ hour per run, tested A

& B

May

‐ 1988 Thermal oxidizer

performance test NO

x , CO, O 2 , CO 2 , THC, SO 2 , EDC, VCM Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

7E, 10, 25A, 18, 106,

TACB

‐ 10

Oct

‐ 1988 Scrubber performance test HCl/Cl

2 Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4,

26A 7 runs, 30 minutes per run, each

at different operating conditions

1 These analytes will be determined using SW

‐ 846 Method 8260B.November 9, 2009

Appendix B 

## Stack Test Reports Provided on CD.