Document DM7M4jQGdo5ygMXVGypLgG7N5

Interoffice Communication Mr. R. E. Lehiokuhl, Houston, Texas To Mr. L. N. Vernon, Houston, Texas From R. G. Gantz, Ponca City, Oklahoma at* July 26, 1976 sublet VCM Plant Incinerator Meeting - July 21 - Houston, Texas During the July 21 meeting on the VCM Plant incineration project, a* general basis of design was established for the incinerator-HCl recovery unit package. A general plan of action was then outlined. For the benefit of all persons involved, the major conclusions, decisions, and action steps established at the meeting are listed in the attached summary. Effort will now be directed toward finalizing the detailed process design for incineration. Mssrs. J. O. Gibson and J. R. Campbell are assigned full time to that part of the project. Work should begin on the definitive estimate as soon as possible to expedite signing of the AFE. Mr. M. D. McGee will be assigned full time to prepare the detailed process design for HC1 recovery beginning August 1. The AFE for the recovery system will not be ready for signing until the first quarter of 1977. Ronald G. Gantz Supervising Process Engineer Design Division Processi Engineering Department mdn Encs CC: LDW:AJM:DHS:GJF JOG:JRC:MDMcG JBH:WET:REB:RRP RDJjKRB Mr. J. D. Burns, Houston, Texas Mr. W. B. Carter, Houston, Texas Mr. J. McCleskey, Houston, Texas Mr. B. D. Ratliff, Hous ton, Texas Mr. H. W. Hilgers, Houston, Texas Mr. D. A. Kuhn, Houston, Texas Mr. C. E. Knapp, Houston, Texas Mr. R. W. McPherson , Houston, Texas Mr. D. 0. Popovac, Wes 11ake, Louisiana Mr. R. D. Gamblin, Westlake, Louisiana Mr. J. A. Debernardi, Westlake, Louisiana1 Mr. J. H. McCulley, Westlake, Louisiana 0Z3126 CCR 00 MEETING SUMMARY VCM PLANT INCINERATION PROJECT Meeting Date: July 21, 1976 Place: Houston, Texas Attendees: L. N. Vernon - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston R. E. Lehmkuhl - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston D. A. Kuhn - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston B. D. Ratliff - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston C. E. Knapp - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston R. W. McPherson - Chemicals Headquarters - Houston R. D. Gamblin - Lake Charles Chemicals - Lake Charles J. A. Debernardi - VCM Plant - Lake Charles J. H. McCulley - VCM Plant - Lake Charles D. H. Sanders - Process Engineering - Ponca City G. J. Fryar - Process Engineering - Ponca City R. G. Gantz - Process Engineering - Ponca City J. O. Gibson - Process Engineering - Ponca City J. R. Campbell - Process Engineering - Ponca City DESIGN BASIS* 1 2 The design basis established at the meeting is as follows: 1. A single 48 MM Btu/hr incinerator will be designed and installed. The economics of installing a second incinerator are not attractive even in the event of a plant expansion. Therefore, additional incineration capacity would be con sidered only if the EPA required a second unit for stream factor, or if we lost one of our by-product disposal contracts. Current predictions are that neither of these possibilities will occur for several years, if at all. Facilities will be included in the single incinerator for firing either LLE o r tars. The system will be laid out so that a parallel unit can be easily installed at a later date. With only one incineration system, refrigeration of the light ends column overhead must be included in the expansion. 2. An HCl recovery unit will be added to the incineration system. HCl recovery cannot be completely justified by economic factors alone. However, neutralization is not a viable alternative. Clam shell handling would be a tremendous problem, and there is a good chance that shell shortages will occur in the future. In the environmental CCR 000023127 area, there is a potential worker exposure problem, due to HC1 emissions from a neutralization pit. There is also a potential waste water problem due to the large increase in the dissolved solids in the plant discharge. 3. Since only one incineration unit is to be installed, the HC1 recovery system will be designed for a maximum feed rate of 4,200 Ibs/hr (production for the present plant vents plus tars case). Preinvesting capital for a larger HC1 recovery system cannot be justified in light of the deci sions listed under point 1. 4. Although the HC1 recovery unit will be designed for only 4,200 lbs/hr, the oxychlorination unit expansion will be designed to handle an incineration HC1 recycle of 7,000 Ibs/hr. This design basis will ensure that a future incinerator-HCl recovery system would never be bottle necked by the oxychlorination unit. PLAN OF ACTION The action steps established at the meeting are as follows: 1. PED will proceed with the design of the incineration unit. The projected completion date is September 10. 2. CED is to prepare a definitive estimate for the incinerator. The estimate must be ready no later than mid-November to allow time for AFE submittal. The effect of a delay in EPA promulgation of the final vinyl chloride standard was discussed at the meeting. The concensus of opinion of those present was that the incinerator AFE request should not be delayed past mid-November, even if the EPA has not issued the regulation. 3. Since HC1 recovery will be justified for other than economic reasons, these reasons must be better defined and quantified. The VCM Plant and PED will complete this task in time for the 1977 Capital Budget. ^ 4. PED will proceed with the design of the HCl recovery unit. Completion is projected for late 1976. 5. The AFE request for HCl recovery will be submitted as soon as possible in 1977, probably about March 1. 6. PPG will be contacted to determine the chances of negotiating an open ended contract for tars disposal. This would allow us to burn tars until the plant expansion. E>. Gamblin is handling this effort. 2 Oq **8 7. D. A. Kuhn will prepare a list of information he feels will be required for an EPA waiver application. He will provide guidance as to the required details. 8. A permit request will be made to the State of Louisiana no later than 6 months prior to construction. This re quest will not include the caustic scrubber. The caustic scrubber will be installed, however, even if the state does not require it. Chlorine reduction is required to prevent worker exposure problems. James 0. Gibson Process Engineer Design Division Process Engineering Department mdn 3 CCR 000023129