DEQ-CFW_00065469

I.
• 0
Reeves, Gregory W
From: Beth Barfield <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:20 PM
To: Pjetraj, Michael
Cc: Vozzo, Steven; Reeves, Gregory W; Willets, William; Yuki Puram
Subject: RE: Permitting of Sources that are Subject to MON
Attachments: MACT applicability.docx; adi-mact-m060016.pdf
Hi Michael,
Now that we have access to the information that we need to determine both uncontrolled and controlled emissions
from the units that Kuraray purchased from DuPont we have learned that even without controls, the facility is a minor
source of HAPs. When we last spoke, we had thought that the scrubbers were required to keep the methanol emissions
below 10tpy, and since the scrubbers were state -only enforceable, we could not say that federally enforceable limits
were in place prior to the MON compliance date. Now that we know that the scrubbers are not needed to stay below
the threshold, I believe that we can say that the once in always in policy does not apply.
I am attaching a draft letter requesting confirmation of my understanding. If you agree with my interpretation, please
let me know if it is best to submit it to DENR or directly to EPA.
I'm sorry that we did not have full picture during our earlier discussions.
Beth
Beth Barfield, QEP
Senior Consultant, Air Quality and Climate Change
ERM
1130 Situs Court I Suite 250 1 Raleigh, NC 127606
Main 919.233.4501 1 Direct 919.855.2273
E Beth. Barfield(d-)erm.com I W www.erm.com
The world's leading sustainability consultancy
From: Willets, William [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June_ 09, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Pjetraj, Michael; Yuki Puram
Cc: Vozzo, Steven; Reeves, Gregory W; Beth Barfield
Subject: RE: Permitting of Sources that are Subject to MON
0
Based on multiple conversations we have had that appear correct, the "new" facility will be permitted in accordance
with their PTE, at the appropriate location: i.e. FRO for small/synthetic minor or RCO for Title V. In either case they
would continue to be covered by the major source MACT already in place until such time as all MACT affected facilities
are eliminated from the permit. I don't believe we would change to the area source VVVVVV standard. I will admit that
I am not familiar with the "chemical manufacturing" synthetic minor sources subject to NESHAPS. I suggest that ERM
look into this issue at greater length and provide DAQ with an evaluation.
DEQ-CFW 00065469

William
0 •
William D. Willets, P.E., Chief
Permitting Section
NC DENR, Division of Air Quality
1641 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
Phone/Fax: [phone]
www,ncair.org
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by
statute or other regulation.
************************************************************************
From: Pjetraj, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:20 PM
To: Yuki Puram
Cc: Vozzo, Steven; Willets, William; Reeves, Gregory W; Beth Barfield
Subject: Re: Permitting of Sources that are Subject to MON
Yuki
Thanks for the email.
Based on the information you have provided, once the MACT affected sources become a separate facility, they
will remain subject to MACT based on EPA's Once In Always In Policy.
The new facility may then be permitted based on its potential to emit. The MACT the equipment is subject to is
not one of the MACTs that specifically require a TV permit regardless of PTE.
The notation in the EPA link that you provided appears to be specific to chemical facilities that installed
controls to become SM sources post 1990. Which according to the information ERM has shared, is not the case
with the formerly DuPont equipment. There is also some concern on whether EPA still flows this requirement.
I have asked William Willets, DAQ Permits Section Chief and Steven Vozzo, Fayetteville Regional Office
Supervisor to follow up on this email and the correct permit application to submit.
Thanks
Michael Pjetraj, PE, Supervisor
Stationary Source Compliance Branch
Technical Services Section
NC DENR, Division of Air Quality
Green Square Office Complex
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
Phone/Fax: [phone]
www.ncair.org
michael.pi etr aj gncdenr. gov
DEQ-CFW 00065470

•
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
Yuki Puram <Yuki.Puramkerm,com> wrote:
Hi Michael;
Thank you so much for taking time to discuss the permitting process for our client who purchased a portion of the
DuPont plant in Fayetteville (Permit No. 03735T37). I just wanted to follow up to verify our discussion regarding
MACT/GACT applicability and the fee classifications associated with the permitting process.
I understand that the sources in the facility will be subject to NESHAP Subpart FFFF, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing(MON),because the sources were located in a major source for HAPs at the time of the compliance
date. Since Subpart FFFF does not require the facility to obtain a Title V permit, the facility can be classified as Synthetic
Minor or true minor depending on their emissions even if they are subject to MON.
However, I was reviewing the following EPA's website about title V permit applicability and wanted to make sure the
facility is not subject to a title V permit based on this:
http://www.epa.gov/oagps001/permits/obtain.html
Specifically, where it says "Certain Synthetic Minor Sources subject to NESHAP Standards — Chemical Manufacturing."
I just want to make sure that this facility does not fall into that category.
The other point that I wanted to clarify is that the sources that are subject to Subpart FFFF will not be subject to Subpart
VVVVVV (6V), NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources. If the facility is subject to MACT, it should not be
subject to GACTjust because the facility is now an area source.
Please let me know your thoughts on these matters. Thanks again for your assistance. Your help is much appreciated!
Best regards,
Yuki
Yuki Puram
Staff Engineer
ERM
1130 Situs Ct.
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27606
Tel: [phone] (direct line)
www.erm.com
[e-mail]
DEQ-CFW 00065471

t �:.:.
The world's leading sustainability consultancy
This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY
LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for
delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
mail message in error, please contact us immediately at [phone] and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer
system. Thank you, ERM NC, Inc.
This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY
LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for
delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
mail message in error, please contact us immediately at [phone] and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer
system. Thank you, ERM NC, Inc.
DEQ-CFW 00065472

• 0
Potential emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) from the GLA in Fayetteville are expected to be
less than the thresholds that would classify the Kuraray facility as a major source of HAPs. As a non -
major, or area source of HAPs, the applicable regulation for controlling HAP emissions from the facility
would be changed from 40CFR63 Subpart FFFF (4F), which now applies to the DuPont Company
Fayetteville Works, to 40CFR63 Subpart VVVVVV (6V). The requirements for area sources are not as
stringent as those for major sources of HAPS and the fees that need to be paid to DENR (both the
application and annual permit fees) are less for non -major sources of HAPS. However, due to the EPA
"Once In Always In" (OIAI) policy with regard to MACT applicability, it is not clear that the new facility
would qualify as an area source of HAPs.
The OIAI policy was detailed in a May 16, 1995 memo from John Seitz (then Director Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards) in which he stated that if a source is major on the "first compliance date" of the
applicable standard, it will always be a major source with respect to that standard. In the memo, the
"first compliance date" is defined as the "[f]irst date a source must comply with an emission limitation
or other substantive regulatory requirement (i.e., leak detection and repair programs, work practice
measures, housekeeping measures, etc..., but not a notice requirement) in the applicable MACT
standard."
Subpart 4F specifies different compliance dates for new and existing sources:
(a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(a)(1) If you startup your new affected source before November 10, 2003, then you must
comply with the requirements for new sources in this subpart no later than November 10,
2003.
(a)(2) If you startup your new affected source after November 10, 2003, then you must
comply with the requirements for new sources in this subpart upon startup of your affected
source.
(b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must comply with the
requirements for existing sources in this subpart no later than May 10, 2008.
[40 CFR §63.2445]
If the units are considered new, then the first compliance date for Kuraray would be when Kuraray
begins to operate the affected units (i.e. (a)2). Since the facility will not be a major source once Kuraray
begins operation of the facility, then 6V rather than 4F would apply.
If the GLA are considered to be existing sources, then the first compliance date would have been May
10, 2008 and since the GLA were "in" as part of the Fayetteville Works major HAP source, under the EPA
OIAI policy, they will continue to be regulated by 4F instead of 6V.
In the general provisions for the MACT, new and existing sources are defined as follows:
Existing source means any affected source that is not a new source.
New source means any affected source the construction or reconstruction of which is
commenced after the Administrator first proposes a relevant emission standard
under this part establishing an emission standard applicable to such source.
[40 CFR §63.2]
DEQ-CFW 00065473

• 0
The definitions are based on when the units were constructed or reconstructed, and are not dependent
on the date when they were first operated by the new owner.
However "affected source" is defined as a collection of equipment,
Affected source, for the purposes of this part, means the collection of equipment,
activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is
included in a section 112(c) source category or subcategory for which a section
112(d) standard or other relevant standard is established pursuant to section 112 of
the Act. Each relevant standard will define the "affected source, " as defined in this
paragraph unless a different definition is warranted based on a published
justification as to why this definition would result in significant administrative,
practical, or implementation problems and why the different definition would resolve
those problems. The term "affected source, " as used in this part, is separate and
distinct from any other use of that term in EPA regulations such as those
implementing title 1V of the Act. Affected source may be defined differently for part
63 than affected facility and stationary source in parts 60 and 61, respectively. This
definition of "affected source, "and the procedures for adopting an alternative
definition of "affected source, "shall apply to each section 112(d) standard for which
the initial proposed rule is signed by the Administrator after June 30, 2002.
Under this definition, since the particular collection of equipment will be new following the purchase of
the GLA assets, the facility may be considered a new source. The definition specifies that "affected
source" may be defined differently for Part 63 of the regulations. This is important because precedent
has been set in other parts of the regulations that would tie the definition of existing and new to the
construction date, not the formation of the facility under a new owner as a source, which would make
the Kuraray facility an existing source. As noted earlier, if the Kuraray facility is considered an existing
source with respect to the NESHAPs, the application of the OIAI policy would require that the new
Kuraray facility would remain a major source of HAPs; therefore 4F would continue to apply and a Title V
permit would be required.
One other criteria that needs to be considered is, if the date of the formation of the facility can be used
to determine if it is new or existing, then which regulation (4F or 6V) would take precedence? The
definition of affected source specifies that this definition applies only to section 112(d) standards for
which the initial proposed rule was signed after June 30, 2002. The initial 4F rule was proposed before
June 30, 2002 (April 4, 2002), whereas 6V was proposed after that date (October 6, 2008).
We recommend that these issues, and others as may be identified, be reviewed by others who have a
legal background to confirm the status of the proposed facility with respect to the application of the
OIAI policy.
DEQ-CFW 00065474