AQ_F_0400034_20091118_ST_STO-Rpt

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF Fayetteville Regional Office
AIR QUALITY Valley Protein Inc-Wadesboro Div
NC Facility ID 0400034
Stack Test Observation Report County/FIPS:Anson/007
Date: 11/24/2009
Facility Data Compliance Data
Valley Protein Inc-Wadesboro Div Observation Date 11/18/2009
Little Duncan Road Observer's Name Gregory Reeves
Wadesboro,NC 28170 Operating Status Operating
La,. 35d 2.1192m Long: 80d 4.9683m Action Code 23/STACK TEST
SI : 2077/Animal And Marine Fats And Oil OBSERVED
NAICS: 311613/Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
Contact Data Permit Data
Facility Contact Authorized Contact Technical Contact permit 06467/T17
Dean Deibert Dean Deibert Van Jones Issued 8/7/2009
General Manager General Manager Environmental Manager Expires 1/31/2011
-[phone] [phone] [phone] Classification Title V
Permit Status Active
Inspector's Signature: Comments:
Date of Signature:
I. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: From FRO,take US401 south through Wagram. South of Wagram,take Old Wire
Road(NC 144)to US74;take US 74 west(right turn)through Wadesboro. West of Wadesboro,take US52 north and
proceed just past the Triangle Brick plant. The entrance to the Valley Protein plant is on the right;proceed down the
road to the driveway to the office building. The spraying fields are farther down the Valley Protein entrance road.
II. FACILITY DESCRIPTION: The facility renders chicken feathers,blood,fat and organs for a number of
processors. They use several rendering methods to make four products: feather meal,pet-food-grade protein meal,feed-
grade meal(poultry food additive),and fat. The majority of the fat is sold as a feed additive but can also be used as
boiler fuel when fuel prices warrant. There are four uncontrolled boilers that supply steam to the processes;additionally,
boilers B-1,B-2 and B-3 serve as odor control devices. A fifth boiler is permitted as an emergency boiler. The primary
control for the rendering emission is the evaporation of condensables,then oxidation within the boilers. An alternate
scenario is directing non-condensable emissions through the wet scrubber.and cross-flow scrubber,normally used only
for room air control. This facility employs 130 workers and operates 24 hours for 5 and one half days each week;the
remaining one and one half days are consumed by maintenance and inspections. Weekly production is currently 10.5
million pounds.
III. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF TESTING: The testing was being conducted to determine the emissions
from the cross flow scrubber and packed tower, in order to verify permit compliance and parameters. Valley Protein
made a verbal agreement with DAQ to perform stack testing in lieu of placing a formal testing stipulation in the air
permit.
IV. OBSERVATION SUMMARY: On 18 November 2009,Robert Hayden, Steven Vozzo,and I arrived at Valley
Protein to conduct a compliance inspection and to observe the source testing of the cross flow scrubber and packed tower
scrubber with the new Dupont odor control chemical. We met with Dean Deibert,General Manager, and James Hodges,

Environmental Manager. We reviewed the production,maintenance,and operating records for the compliance
inspection(see inspection report for details). We also discussed the new DuPont odor control chemical ActXone—
ZA300HS(a potassium monopersulfate based oxidizing solution),which has replaced the used of Chlorine Dioxide in the
cross flow scrubber(ID#C8)and packed tower scrubber(ID#C4). While the permit requires that chemical additions be
controlled to yield a solution ORP level>300 mv,it is the opinion of the plant personnel that odor control is effective as
long as there is any positive ORP level. We then proceeded on a facility tour including the area where the emissions
testing was being conducted.
The testing 11/18/2009 was being conducted running only the 320U Cooker line. This included EPA Method 5 and 202
for PM,and Method 25A for VOC. Further tests will be conducted on 11/19/2009 running only the new feather
hydrolyzer line. When we arrived at the emissions testing site,the first run of the test had just been concluded,and the
consultant(Kleinfelder)was setting up for the second run. We were able to observe the test filters from the Method 5
testing,and both the inlet and outlet filters appeared to be clean and free of particulate matter. The log of the first run
results and data were reviewed,and pertinent data were noted on the Source Test Observer's Checklist for the FRO file.
I did not access the sample port sites to verify information on leak testing,orientation of nozzles,placement of nozzles,
etc,as these sites were located on overhead piping that was only accessible via a portable lift. This data will be supplied
by Kleinfelder. The production rate was noted as 44,000 lb/hr,versus a normal operating rate of 43,000-45,000 lb/hr and
a target rate for the test of 45,000 lb/hr. There were no process upsets during the time we were on site during the testing.
We requested that Mr Deibert supply us information on the type of material being processed and the production rates
during the testing so we could correlate this info with the testing data.
During our observations, it appeared that the testing was being conducted per the submitted protocol.
/GWR
Attachments:
• Stack Test Observer's Checklist
• Stack Test Protocol
Additional Notes 01/04/2010:
On 12/02/2009 FRO received the additional info requested concerning the type and source of materials processed during
the two stack tests conducted on 11/18/2009 and 11/19/2009. The production rate during the stack test on 11/19/2009
was 25,360 lb/hr according to the info submitted,versus a protocol target rate of 26,000 lb/hr.
See the attached information regarding the material processed during the testing(18 pages).