-MAIN-MENU-
Home
Email
Links
Search
Kentucky Resources Council, PO Box 1070, Frankfort, KY 40602 Phone [502] 875-2428

-MAIN-MENU-
Join Us
Photo/Audio
About KRC
PO Box 1070, Frankfort, KY 40602  Phone 502.875.2428, Fax 502.875.2845

Council Comments On Proposed Air Permit For Arkema, Inc.'s Calvert City Chemical Plant  Posted: November 18, 2011

November 18, 2011

Andrew True, Permit Reviewer
Division for Air Quality
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601


Re: Draft Title V Construction/Operating Permit
Arkema, Inc.
Permit V-11-026, Source ID 21-157-00007
Agency Interest 2918, APE 20100004-5, and 20110001


Dear Permit Reviewer:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. (Council), a nonprofit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and dedicated to prudent use and conservation of the natural resources of the Commonwealth.

The Council includes numerous individuals who live, reside, and work in the area of the Commonwealth that is affected by air emissions from facilities located in Calvert City, including the Arkema facility whose draft permit is the subject of this hearing.

According to the Statement of Basis accompanying the draft Title V Permit, Arkema Inc. (Arkema) is a specialty chemical manufacturing plant, and has potential emissions of over 100 tons per year of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds. The facility is also identified as having the potential for emission of a single hazardous air pollutant of over 10 tons per year and combined HAP emissions greater than 25 tons per year, subjecting the facility to major source HAP regulatory standards.

The Council has reviewed the draft permit, and is concerned with the sufficiency of the permit in several areas. Before turning to specific comments, those general areas are these (and were outlined in the September 30, 2011 request for hearing):

1. The Council is concerned that the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 do not appear to have been completely addressed and all required testing and permit limitations incorporated into the draft permit.

2. The Council is concerned that the emission limits and compliance demonstrations for each emission point may not be sufficiently clear and enforceable as a practical matter.

3. The Council is concerned that the recordkeeping requirements for some of the emissions points may not be fully compliant with 40 CFR Part 63.

4. The Council is concerned that adequate monitoring may not have been required for some emission points.

5. The Council is concerned that where used in referencing emissions limits and reporting requirements for a number of the emissions points, the term “applicable” is insufficiently precise in identifying which requirements attach to the emissions.

6. The Council is concerned that all appropriate regulatory references may not have been incorporated into some emissions limits and reporting requirements.

Specific comments follow, referenced by page number, and/or emission point, as appropriate. For many of the identified Emission Points, the comments identify potential deficiencies and ambiguities that are repeated throughout Part B of the Permit.

Emission Point B2

The draft permit recognizes that 40 CFR Part 63 A, F and G are applicable, yet it does not appear that all of the Subpart A requirements have been incorporated into the permit.

This emission point has several emission limitations which appear to be more in the mature of operating limitations (for example, “The permittee shall reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by operating and maintaining a closed vent system and control device”). Additionally, the emission limitation of 95+% organic HAP reduction with exceptions for maintenance and malfunction is written more like an operating limitation. Enforceable emissions limits should be incorporated for this emission point.

The emission limit is unclear concerning what system is being utilized here. Is a closed vent system and control device being used or is an “equivalent” used?

The compliance demonstration is also unclear, and the Statement of Basis does nothing to clarify the compliance demonstration.The draft permit requires compliance demonstrations unless a flare is being used, yet there is no explanation of whether a flare is being used to control this emission point (EP), and if so, how the initial compliance demonstration was made with respect to the control efficiency of the flare. Was a design evaluation done or was performance testing done? What were the parameters chosen in the NOC monitoring plan?

On page 102, the testing requirement is unclear. At this point, the permit should reflect either that a design evaluation was done or that performance testing was done, in which case it should already have been submitted and reviewed. It is also unclear whether any subsequent testing is required.

On page 102, EP B2 has monitoring requirements which are really operating limitations rather than requirements to monitor in a manner that will demonstrate continued compliance. For example, “The permittee shall … operate and maintain the control device such that the monitored parameters remain within the ranges specified in the Notification of Compliance Status”.

On page 102, Emission Point B2 has a monitoring requirement which is unclear. Are and will inspections continue to be performed, or is negative pressure utilized so that Arkema does not have to inspect?

On page 102, Emission Point B2 Recordkeeping Requirement 5b appears to omit provisions of 40 CFR 63.123(f)(2). The requirements should be fully incorporated.

On page 103, Emission Point B2 Recordkeeping Requirement 5c is unclear. The requirement does not describe whether continuous records are required to be kept, and if they are, what is to be recorded.

On page 103, all of the Reporting Requirements are unclear, since each reporting requirement is made contingent upon something being “applicable” but does not identify what is applicable. If the word “applicable” is to be used in the permit’s provisions, then details should be provided of what the Cabinet believes is applicable (as done with Recordkeeping Requirements on page 102).

On page 107, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A applicability is omitted under Applicable Regulations.

Table 3 to Subpart F of Part 63—General Provisions Applicability to Subparts F, G, and Ha to Subpart F, makes a number of Subpart A provisions applicable to the SOCMI source category. Based on the 40 CFR 63.10 references under Operating Limitations, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A appears to be applicable.

On pages 108 and 109, Operating Limitation 1f does not reference the applicable regulation under which the condition is imposed.

Emission Point M9

The Statement of Basis notes the applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN to this EP but does not provide much other information on EP M9. In order to gauge whether the permit conditions are sufficient, the Statement of Basis should describe relevant information. For example, whether the NOC was approved by the Division for Air Quality and if so, when; whether Division for Air Quality personnel have reviewed the facility’s Start Up Shutdown and Malfunction Plan (SSMP) and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan to assure the public that technically complex issues have all been addressed; and whether initial testing was done, and if not, why not.

Other Operating Limitations appear to be applicable that have not been incorporated, including limitations required by 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c), and 40 CFR 63.9005(d).

On page 119, the compliance demonstration for the emission limitation references control equipment, yet fails to reference whether initial performance testing necessary to determine the sufficiency of the control equipment was conducted. Unless additional testing is required, subsequent compliance demonstration should also include associated monitoring, record keeping, and reporting for the control equipment requirements.

On page 120 under Recordkeeping Requirements, a LDAR plan is referenced, yet applicable requirements for such a plan are lacking. If the requirement for a LDAR plan is applicable to this emission point, there should be additional operating, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements related to LDAR on or about page 120.

On page 122, based on the language under Applicable Regulations, it appears that 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN is not applicable even though it is described as applicable. Please clarify.

On pages 128, 143, 149, 155, 157, 181, 184, 19, 214, 228, and 253, the Applicable Regulations section makes reference to Section D with language similar to “See SECTION D, Source Emission Limitations and Testing Requirements for source wide hydrogen chloride (HCl) and chlorine (Cl2) limits.” While Section D may be relevant to the emission points covered on these pages, these references are not applicable regulations. The applicable regulation, which appears to be 401 KAR 63:021, should be referenced.

Emission Point Q7

Emission Point Q7 appears to be missing 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS requirements.

On page 138, Emission Point Q7 appears to be missing an operating limitation. Table 4 of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF appears to require venting through a closed vent system but I can find no such requirement for Emission Point Q7.

On page 138, Emission Point Q7 has several emission limitations which are actually operating limitations (for example, “The owner or operator shall reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by operating and maintaining control device(s) in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2470”). Additionally, the emission limitation of 95+% organic HAP reduction with exceptions for maintenance and malfunction is written more like an operating limitation than being expressed as an enforceable emissions limit.

On page 138, the compliance demonstration is unclear and the Statement of Basis does nothing to clarify how the compliance demonstration was made. How was initial compliance demonstrated? I assume that the referenced permit provisions are utilized for subsequent compliance demonstration but this is only inferred.

On page 139, Emission Point Q7 has monitoring requirements without the appropriate regulatory citations. Additionally, Monitoring Requirement 4c points to Emission Point A6 but Emission Point A6 has no requirements due to applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF.

On page 139, Emission Point Q7 has no monitoring requirements for capture of tank emissions. Is negative pressure being utilized, and if so, is testing required where negative pressure is not maintained?

On page 139, Emission Point Q7 Recordkeeping Requirement 5d points to Emission Point A6 but Emission Point A6 appears to have no requirements due to applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF.

Emission Point Q5

Under Emission Point Q5 Reporting Requirement 6c on page 94, there is a reference to a compliance report. I assume that this is the compliance report from Reporting Requirement 6b but the condition does not clearly state which compliance report.

On page 128, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A applicability is omitted.

On or near page 128, Emission Point Q5 appears to be missing some 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations don’t appear to incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c).

On page 129, use of the phrase “for the applicable emission limits or work practice standards” in Operating Limitation 1c is confusing. Is the Division requiring a SSMP for the thermal oxidizer and its associated control equipment? If so, SSMPs do not apply to emission limits and work practice standards, but instead, apply to equipment. The Council recommend the limit be rewritten as follows: “Due to requirements of 40 CFR 63.102(a)(4), 40 CFR 63.9005(c), and 40 CFR 63.2525(j), the permittee shall develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)”.

The Council questions whether for Emission Limitation 2c, results from a one-time test are satisfactory to demonstrate compliance, since this limit can potentially change every year. The continued operation of the thermal oxidizer at the appropriate gas flow rate and temperature is necessary, as well as a calculation every year.

Under Emission Limitation 2d, it is unclear what are the “applicable” emission limits, and whether the HCl limits are control limits, and whether the limits organic HAP control limits? Looking at Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF, it appears that organic HAP control of 98+% is basically the requirement. Yet looking at the compliance demonstration method for Emission Limitation 2d, compliance with scrubber limits appears to be the only relevant concern. Unless the Council is in error in reviewing the Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF, compliance with scrubber provisions does not demonstrate overall compliance, since while compliance with scrubber limitations is important to HCl emission limitations, it is relatively insignificant to organic HAP control.

This provision is of particular concern to the Council since it could be read to shield the permittee from potential violations of some emission limitations of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF. The Council recommends that initial compliance be demonstrated through testing and subsequent compliance might be demonstrated through compliance with Operating Limitation 1b.

The use of “applicable” under Emission Limitation 2d is another example of a lack of clarity in this permit. Use of “applicable” should not be used in lieu of specific reference to the provisions that are necessary for regulatory compliance. If the persons issuing this permit don’t properly identify compliance requirements and instead use this “applicable” reference, enforcement of the permit may be compromised. Most of the “applicable” references within this permit do not serve to clearly and adequately identify requirements in order to allow the permit to be enforceable as a practical matter, and should be replaced throughout by specific references. Similarly, under Testing Requirement 3a, what are the “applicable” performance tests? This should be clarified.

Under Testing Requirement 3a, it is unclear which contingent factor is controlling. Since both issuance and renewal of the Title V permit should be established, this should be clarified. Upon review of the Statement of Basis, one still needs clarification.

Under Testing Requirement 3b, it should be clarified which performance test “applies.”

Under Emission Point Q5 Monitoring Requirement 4a, there is no cited regulatory basis. Without a cited regulatory basis, Kentucky’s incorporation of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(i) is not satisfied.

In Monitoring Requirement 4b on page 128 and in the Statement of Basis, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS applicability is omitted.

Emission Point Q5 appears to be missing most 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS requirements.

In Recordkeeping Requirement 5a, there is no cited regulatory basis. Without a cited regulatory basis, Kentucky’s incorporation of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(i) is not satisfied.

In Reporting Requirements 6a and 6b, there is no cited regulatory basis. Without a cited regulatory basis, Kentucky’s incorporation of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(i) is not satisfied.

In Reporting Requirement 6e, there is a reference to a compliance report. I assume that this is the compliance report from Reporting Requirement 6d but the condition does not clearly state which compliance report is being referenced.

On page 92, use of the phrase “for the applicable emission limits or work practice standards” in Operating Limitation 1 is confusing. The limit should be rewritten as follows: “Due to requirements of 40 CFR 63.9005(c), the permittee shall develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)”.

Emission Point R1

The Statement of Basis notes 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN applicability but it does not provide much other information on emission point R1. In order to gauge whether the permit conditions are sufficient, the Statement of Basis should describe relevant information. For example, was the NOC approved by the Division for Air Quality, and if so, when? Have Division for Air Quality personnel reviewed the facility’s SSMP and the O&M plan to assure the public that technically complex issues are resolved? Was initial testing done, and if not, why not? What about additional tests?

Other Operating Limitations seem to apply, and limits should be established due to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c), and 40 CFR 63.9005(d).

On page 144, compliance demonstration for the emission limitation references control equipment. If initial performance testing was done, it should be referenced. Subsequent compliance should also include associated monitoring, record keeping, and reporting for the control equipment requirements.

On page 145 under Recordkeeping Requirements, a LDAR plan is referenced. If the LDAR is applicable to this emission point there should be additional operating, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements related to LDAR on or about page 145.

Under Emission Point R1 Reporting Requirement 6c, there is a reference to a compliance report. The Council assumes that this is the compliance report from Reporting Requirement 6b but the condition does not clearly state which compliance report.

On page 149, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H is omitted.

Emission Point T2

Under Emission Point T2 Operating Limitation 1b, it is unclear what are the “applicable” requirements for equipment leaks. It is assumed that Emission Point T2 is not a bench-scale process but this is not addressed. Additionally, the compliance demonstration method implies that none of the 40 CFR 63.2480(b) provisions are being utilized but, again, this is not definitively addressed. In fact, Emission Limitation 2c implies that provisions of 40 CFR 63.2480(b) may apply. Even though 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H is described under the compliance demonstration as the option chosen, is all of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H applicable? If not, the parts that are applicable should be identified.

Subpart H requirements should be incorporated for Emission Point T2. Among other requirements, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H requires repair of leaks by a specified time after the leak is detected, and these requirements should be in the permit as enforceable conditions rather than in the LDAR plan, as should all key provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H that are not subject to change. This comment is not limited to operating limitations, but is applicable to other subsections of conditions in this emission point.

In Emission Limitation 2c, the requirement states “The permittee shall comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63 Subpart H referenced therein, except as specified in 40 CFR 63.2480(b) and (d)”. This is just as unclear as if “applicable” had been inserted into the statement. 40 CFR 63 Subpart H Table 6 has 5 options (if you include the provision for new sources). It is unclear if the limit is to comply with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart UU, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H, 40 CFR Part 65 Subpart F, or any combination of the 3 regulations.

On page 155, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is omitted.

On page 155, based on the regulatory citation in Monitoring Requirement 4a, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is omitted.

Emission Point U3

Most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to be omitted.

Emission Point U3 is missing all 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) are not included.

On page 155, Emission Point U3 is missing an Operating Limitations for venting through a closed vent system as required by Table 3 of 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF.

On page 155, Emission Point U3 Emission Limitation 2b is very unclear.

First, Table 2 of 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF applies to batch process vents. Are these vents batch or continuous, and is Table 1 applicable instead?

Second, the limitation is a combination of operating limitations and emission limitations.

Third, emissions from the process vents must go through a combustion device but, under the compliance demonstration, one of the options is to vent to the F-134a vent scrubber. If the Council understands correctly, the F-134a vent scrubber does not precede or follow a combustion device, so that the compliance demonstration method appears to be circumvention of part of Emission Limitation 2b. If Emission Point U3 is partially vented to the F-134a vent scrubber, then 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF may not be met.

Fourth, given that the vents may be controlled differently and that the F-134a vent scrubber has no demonstrated organic HAP control efficiency, the compliance demonstration for the required control efficiency should include a calculation. Please clarify and correct all problems with this requirement.

On page 155, Emission Point U3 Emission Limitation 2c appears to be redundant to Emission Limitation 2b except that Emission Limitation 2c is pursuant to Table 3.

On page 155, Emission Point U3 has no Testing Requirements. If this is truly the requirement, the Statement of Basis should elaborate on the basis for not including them.

On page 156, recordkeeping requirements seem to be missing, including the calculation requirement of 40 CFR 63.2465 and the requirements of 40 CFR 63.2525.

On page 157, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is omitted.

On page 157, based on the regulatory citation in Monitoring Requirement 4b, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is omitted.

Emission Point U8

Most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to be omitted.

Emission Point U8 appears to be missing all 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) are not included.

On page 157, Emission Point U8 is missing an Operating Limitations for venting through a closed vent system as required by Item 1.a.i. of Table 4 to 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF.

On page 157, Emission Point U8 Emission Limitation 2a is unclear. The requirement states “The owner or operator shall reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by operating and maintaining control device(s) in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2470 and the emissions limits specified in Table 4 of that Subpart”. What are the requirements of 40 CFR 63.2470 intended to be made applicable, and which emission limitations?

If Emission Limitations 2a.i. through 2a.iv. are the only requirements of “40 CFR 63.2470 and the emissions limits specified in Table 4 of that Subpart”, then the requirement could be clarified as follows. “…in accordance with the following requirements…”. However, based on the immediately preceding comment to this comment, it appears that these may not be the only applicable requirements of 40 CFR 63.2470 and the emissions limits specified in Table 4.

On page 158, the compliance demonstration method for Emission Point U8 Emission Limitation 2a seems to be missing initial compliance. How does the Division know if 95+% control efficiency is being achieved without testing?

On page 158, Emission Point U8 has no Testing Requirements. If this is truly the requirement, the Statement of Basis should justify.

On page 158, recordkeeping requirements seem to be missing. Some requirements of 40 CFR 63.2525 seem to be missing.

On page 160, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is omitted.

Emission Point U9

Most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to be omitted.

On or about page 160, Emission Point U9 is missing all 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) are not included.

On page 160, Emission Point U9 Emission Limitation 2 seems to be different than the regulatory requirement. The regulatory requirement states “Reduce emissions … by venting emissions through a closed-vent system …”. However, the permit states “The permittee must reduce … emissions … by venting through one or more closed vents …”. A closed-vent system is different than one or more closed vents. The intention of the regulation is to allow emissions to flow to a control device with nearly 100% of the emissions reaching the control device and, after neutralization, entering the atmosphere. In addition to not clearly defining the capture of the emissions, the current permit condition could result in pressure buildup that could result in emergency conditions and, under emergency conditions, the regulations would allow for circumvention of the requirement. This should be corrected.

On page 160, the compliance demonstration method for Emission Point U9 Emission Limitation 2 seems to be missing initial compliance. How do you know if 99+% control efficiency is being achieved without testing? How do you know that the vents are closed vent systems with no verification?

On page 160, Emission Point U9 has no Testing Requirements. If this is truly the requirement, the Statement of Basis should explain.

On page 161, recordkeeping requirements seem to be missing some requirements of 40 CFR 63.2525.

Emission Point U10

Compliance provisions for Emission Point U10 utilize an emission factor without a stated origin on page165. Additionally, control efficiencies for a dust collector (i.e. for a non-specifically described control device) are provided without justification, and the Statement of Basis does not provide additional details for this information.

Without any stated basis for the information, how does Arkema, it cannot be determined whether compliance is being demonstrated. With only a few exceptions (for example, a HEPA filter), 99.9% control efficiency needs to be demonstrated through testing. The Division is requested to provide a more detailed description of the control device, and to explain whether a Division for Air Quality representative has reviewed test data to confirm the efficiency.

The compliance provisions do not currently seem adequate for a true compliance demonstration, since without any monitoring of the dust collector, it is unclear how one would know if the device is providing the stated control efficiency. Additionally, the control efficiency could decrease under several circumstances (depending, for example, on how well the device is maintained).

On page 165, Emission Limitation 2a has a compliance demonstration. Given that compliance seems to require a control device, shouldn’t Arkema be required to monitor the control device periodically (for example, daily) when operating? While utilization of a control device is desired, typically monitoring of the control device is needed. The draft permit does not currently seem to account for monitoring of the control device.

On page 165 of the draft permit, Emission Limitation 2b has a compliance demonstration. If we understand the compliance demonstration correctly, controlled emission points have an emission limitation that can be violated every 6 minutes during 32 hours a year but no parameter related in any way to this limit is being monitored (not even control device maintenance) and the monitoring that is done doesn’t definitively demonstrate compliance because it is not an approved test method. Given the difficulty and cost of compliance demonstration utilizing Method 9 tests, shouldn’t this test be done periodically (for example, yearly)?

On page 167, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is missing.

On page 167, based on the regulatory citation in Record Keeping Requirement 5, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is missing.

Emission Point AA

Under Emission Point AA, on or about page 167, most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to be missing.

On or about page 167, Emission Point AA is missing all 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) are not included.

Under Emission Point AA, on page 167, the compliance demonstration method does not include recordkeeping for the periods when unloading occurs. Given the requirement, isn’t this needed?

On page 167, Emission Point AA is missing an Operating Limitations for venting through a closed vent system as required by Item 1.a.i. of Table 4 to 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF.

On page 168, Emission Point AA Emission Limitation 2a is unclear. The requirement states “The owner or operator shall reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by operating and maintaining control device(s) in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2470 and the emissions limits specified in Table 4 of that Subpart”. It is unclear which are the requirements of 40 CFR 63.2470 intended to be referenced and which emission limitations specified in Table 4 apply. Is there a Subpart to 40 CFR 63.2470? If Emission Limitations 2a.i. through 2a.iv. are the only requirements of “40 CFR 63.2470 and the emissions limits specified in Table 4 of that Subpart”, then the requirement could be clarified as follows. “…in accordance with the following requirements…”.

On page 168, the compliance demonstration method for Emission Point U8 Emission Limitation 2a seems to be missing initial compliance. How do you know if 95+% control efficiency is being achieved without testing?

On page 168, Emission Point AA has no definitive Testing Requirements. If this is truly the requirement, the Statement of Basis should explain.

On page 168, Emission Point AA Monitoring Requirement 4 contains an Operating Limitation. The portion that states “Flow meters shall be installed to monitor the primary scrubber recirculation flow rate, primary scrubber make-up rate, secondary scrubber recirculation flow rate and the secondary scrubber make-up rate” is an Operating Limitation. If meters have already been installed, this requirement should really include a phrase about continuously operating the meters.

On page 169, some recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 63.2525 seem to be missing.

On page 179, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is missing.

Emission Point A5

On page 89, Emission Point A5 has an emission limitation which includes an operating limitation (i.e. “The permittee shall capture all point source ODS emissions from the K-98 AHF azeo column (EP A5)”). The compliance demonstration that follows does not address how 100% capture is achieved nor does the compliance equation account for anything less than 100% capture. The Statement of Basis does not provide additional details for this information. Given that the emissions are coming from a column, are ODSs being separated and recovered? What is the difference between a recovered ODS and point source ODS emissions? Is monitoring used to demonstrate 100% capture? Is initial testing done as part of compliance demonstration for 100% capture?

The compliance provisions do not currently seem adequate for a true compliance demonstration.

Emission Point A7

On page 92, Applicable Regulations for Emission Point A7 are described. It appears that 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is missing.

The Statement of Basis notes 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN applicability but it does not provide much other information on emission point A7. In order to gauge if the permit conditions are sufficient, additional relevant information should be included, such as whether the NOC was approved by the Division for Air Quality, and if so, when; and have Division for Air Quality personnel reviewed the facility’s SSMP and the O&M plan to assure the public that technically complex issues are addressed adequately. With respect to monitoring, it is not explained why alternative monitoring was allowed and how Arkema demonstrated that this is equivalent to the standard monitoring?

Other Operating Limitations seem to apply, and it appears that limits should be established due to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c), and 40 CFR 63.9005(d).

On page 92, compliance demonstration for the emission limitation states “The permittee has demonstrated compliance”. This implies that no further compliance demonstration is required. Excluding additional testing, subsequent compliance is demonstrated through compliance with the control equipment operating requirement and associated monitoring, record keeping, and reporting.

On page 93 under Testing Requirements, the permit utilizes two vague terms. The permit states “the permittee must conduct all applicable performance tests”. The permit also states “The permittee must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to 40 CFR 63 Subpart NNNNN that applies”. What are the “applicable” tests and what test “applies”? Is the initial compliance test all that is ever needed? What will the tests demonstrate? What are the testing frequencies?

On page 94 under Record Keeping Requirements, a LDAR plan is referenced. If the LDAR plan is applicable to this emission point there should be additional operating, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements related to LDAR on or about page 92.

On page 96, based on the language under Applicable Regulations, it appears that 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN is not applicable even though it is described as applicable.

On page 96, the permit utilizes a vague term. The permit states “The permittee shall prepare a Maintenance Wastewater Plan and comply with the applicable maintenance wastewater requirements”. What are the “applicable” maintenance wastewater requirements?

On page 96, Why is there not a requirement to comply with the maintenance wastewater plan or the SSMP?

On pages 115 and 117, the Applicable Regulations section states something similar to “See SECTION D, Source Emission Limitations and Testing Requirements for source wide hydrogen chloride (HCl) and chlorine (Cl2) limits”. As noted earlier, while Section D may be relevant to the emission points covered on pages 115 and 117, the statements are not applicable regulations and a reference to 401 KAR 63:021 as the applicable regulation should be included, and Emission and Testing provisions similarly revised.

Emission Point A6

The Statement of Basis notes 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE applicability but it does not provide much other information on emission point A6 (the incinerator). In order to gauge the sufficiency of the permit conditions, additional information should be provided, including whether, for example, NIC requirements been satisfied (including public notification), and if so, when; when was performance testing last done; whether the NOC was approved by the Division for Air Quality, and if so, when; whether the SSMP was approved by the Division for Air Quality, and if so, when; and whether Division for Air Quality personnel have reviewed the facility’s ESV operating plan, the incinerator operation training program, the incinerator O&M plan, the feedstream analysis plan, QA/QC documents, and the AWFCO programming logic to assure the public that they are sufficient.

It is unclear why the alternative chlorine limit was allowed and how Arkema demonstrated that this limit protects the public?

The Statement of Basis should justify why it believes that monthly visual observations were sufficient for the incinerator. The Council does not believe that the monthly observations alone are sufficient to demonstrate compliance. See the comments below on other opacity limitations for additional details.

On page 243, there is some confusion. Is Natural Gas is the primary fuel, and does this permit allow High Btu hazardous wastes to be used as a primary fuel?

Due to 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(2) and other regulatory provisions, 40 CFR 60 Appendix B appears to be applicable.

In Emission Limitations, there does not appear to be a requirement for achieving a Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) of six 9s (i.e. 99.9999%) as required by 40 CFR 63.1219(c)(2). Additionally, the permit must, to comply with law, prohibit hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 from being fed into the incinerator, by including an Operating Limitation stating such.

Why is the carbon monoxide limit in both the Operating Limitations and the Emission Limitations of Emission Point A6?

Under Emission Point A6 Operating Limitations, there does not appear to be a requirement for knowing the composition of the hazardous wastes to be fed to the incinerator, as provided in 40 CFR 63.1209(c)(1).

Under Emission Point A6 Operating Limitation 1a, operation of an AWFCO is not the only action necessary to demonstrate compliance. Confirmation that the AWFCO is operating properly [see 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(vii)], record keeping provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(b) and (c), and recordation of feed rates as required in feed rate limits [see 40 CFR 63.1209(c)(4)(ii) and (iii)] are all mandated. Additionally it is unclear whether any AWFCO parameter out of range indicates a violation of all Operating Limitation 1a limits? Do the limits apply during a malfunction? What if a subsequent performance test demonstrates that an emission limit will be violated if the permittee continues to operate at what was previously thought to be acceptable [see 40 CFR 63.1207(l)]?

Operating Limitation 1b of Emission Point A6 lacks a cited regulatory basis. Is 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN applicable? Without a cited regulatory basis, Kentucky’s incorporation of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(i) is not satisfied. Second, if Operating Limitation 1a is applicable anytime the incinerator is operating, as one may interpret, the limits seem redundant. If not, this needs to be clarified. Also, if not, is it impossible to feed hazardous waste when non-hazardous waste is fed? Third, based on the 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE NOC and multiple pages of the draft permit (first appearing on page 20), the incinerator appears to be acting as a thermal oxidizer for some process units. If this is the case, then temperature and possibly other limits of Operating Limitation 1a will need to be maintained unless the process vents are excluded from entering the incinerator.

Other Emission Point A6 Operating Limitations seem to apply. Limits should be established due to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c), 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(8)(v), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(5), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)(1), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(B), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(ii), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(iii), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(iv), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(v), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 63.1207(k), 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(1)(ii)(C), 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(2), 40 CFR 63.1209(b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1209(b)(4), 40 CFR 63.1209(f), and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE Appendix Items 1.2, 3.1.b, 5.4, and 6.2 which are applicable through 40 CFR 63.1209(d)(2).

Additional operating limits may also apply but they are difficult to determine without knowing which compliance options were chosen by Arkema. The use of “applicable” testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting in the permit masks Arkema’s choices. Without more information, a more specific comment is not possible, and is another of many reasons why the draft permit and Statement of Basis should be withdrawn, revised, and reissued.

Unless the definition of dry particulate matter control device provides an exclusion, a minimum temperature requirement of 40 CFR 63.1209(k)(1)(i) appears to be applicable. Why is this temperature not in the Emission Point A6 Operating Limitations?

Under Emission Limitation 2a, it would appear that more than operation in accordance with Operating Limitation 1a is necessary to demonstrate compliance. What about initial performance testing? Do violations of operating limits demonstrate emission limit violations [see 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(1)(iii)]? If so, this needs to be clarified. Additionally, are all emission limits violated when an operating limit is violated?

Under Emission Point A6 Emission Limitation 2b, compliance demonstration is unclear. Why weren’t the specific requirements referenced? Additionally, monthly visual observations seem insufficient to demonstrate compliance with a continuous limitation. The process is highly variable and intrinsically capable of violating the standard (if controls are not operating properly). Therefore, compliance demonstration would seem to require more information. What about initial performance testing?

Other Emission Point A6 Testing Requirements seem to apply [see 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(12), 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(B), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(vii), and 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(6)(i)].

For Emission Point A6, what are the “applicable” testing requirements of 40 CFR 63.1207? Is the initial compliance test all that is ever needed [see 40 CFR 63.1207(d)]? What are the exceptions to 40 CFR 63.7 provisions? Will testing for any pollutants be waived due to 40 CFR 63.1207(m)? If no modifications, is DRE testing repeated after the initial test [40 CFR 63.1207(d)(1) might be interpreted to indicate that you do but 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(7)(i)(A) explicitly states that you don’t]? If DRE does not need retesting, does carbon monoxide need retesting? What are the testing frequencies [see 40 CFR 63.1207(d)]?

For Emission Point A6, does Arkema not have to use the test methods described in 40 CFR 63.1208? If not, what is the basis for that conclusion?

For Emission Point A6, what are the “applicable” monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.1209? Are alternatives to CEMS being utilized? Is Arkema utilizing a CO CEMS or a hydrocarbon CEMS?

No oxygen limits are apparent. Is an oxygen CEMS needed [see 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(1)]? Is a COMS required? Is a PM CEMS required [see 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(1)(iii)]? Even if the PM CEMS is required, has EPA promulgated all performance specs and operational requirements applicable to PM CEMS? Some parameters (such as combustion chamber temperature) to be monitored are not dictated by the regulation. What are all of the parameters to be monitored? Is combustion chamber temperature to be monitored? What are the CMSs utilized by the AWFCO? What is the monitoring frequency of each CMS [see 40 CFR 63.1209(b)(3)]? Is chlorine monitoring under 40 CFR 63.1209 applicable even though an alternative limit was established [see 40 CFR 63.1215(g)(1)]? Unless the definition of dry particulate matter control device provides an exclusion, a minimum temperature requirement of 40 CFR 63.1209(k)(1)(i) appears to be applicable. Why is the temperature from the previous sentence not monitored?

For Emission Point A6, is compliance with other requirements (for example, the record keeping requirements) of 40 CFR 63.1209 optional? Without other requirements of 40 CFR 63.1209 stated in the permit, Arkema has a permit shield and, if it is optional, they don’t have to do it.

Other Emission Point A6 Monitoring Requirements seem to apply [see 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)(3)(i), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(iii), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(3)(v), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(7)(i), and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE Appendix Items 4.1, 4.3, and 5 which are applicable through 40 CFR 63.1209(d)(2)]. Additional monitoring requirements may also apply but they are difficult to determine without knowing compliance options chosen by Arkema. The use of “applicable” testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting in the permit masks those choices. Without more information, a more specific comment is not possible, and is another of many reasons why the draft permit and Statement of Basis should be withdrawn, revised, and reissued.

For Emission Point A6, what are the “applicable” record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 63.1211? Looking at of 40 CFR 63.1211(b), it appears that the second, third, fourth, eighteenth, and nineteenth references are not applicable but it is unclear if the fifth and twentieth references are applicable. Title V permits should be specific enough that most people don’t have to guess as to which are applicable. Additionally, there appears to be no 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(7)(i)(D) in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE.

Other Emission Point A6 Record Keeping Requirements seem to apply [see 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and (viii), 40 CFR 63.8(d), 40 CFR 63.8(g), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(4)(i), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(7)(iv), 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(3)(i), 40 CFR 63.1209(b)(3), 40 CFR 63.1209(c)(4), and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE Appendix which is applicable through 40 CFR 63.1209(d)(2)]. Calculation requirement in the regulation might also fit in the record keeping section (see 40 CFR 63.1209(a)(6), 40 CFR 63.1209(b)(5), and several calculations in 40 CFR 63.1215).

For Emission Point A6, what are the “applicable” reporting requirements of 40 CFR 63.1211? Looking at of 40 CFR 63.1211(a), it appears that the first reference is not applicable but this is unclear.

For Emission Point A6, some of the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210 are applicable but are not identified in the permit. Once again, any “applicable” requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210 should be specified.

Other Emission Point A6 Reporting Requirements seem to apply. Even if notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210 are incorporated into the permit, other reporting requirements still seem to apply [see 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and (viii), 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4), 40 CFR 63.7(b), 40 CFR 63.7(c)(2), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(f)(2), 40 CFR 63.7(g)(3), 40 CFR 63.8(d), 40 CFR 63.8(e), 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)(3)(ii), 40 CFR 63.1209(c)(3), 40 CFR 63.1215(h), and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEE Appendix Item 6.6 which is applicable through 40 CFR 63.1209(d)(2)]. Additional requirements of 40 CFR 63 Subpart A may also apply.

Emission Point A14

Under Emission Point A14, on or about page 179, most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to be missing.

All 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements seem to be missing. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) are not included.

On page 179, Emission Point A14 Emission Limitation 2 seems to be different than the regulatory requirement. The regulatory requirement states “Reduce emissions … by venting emissions through a closed-vent system …”. However, the permit states “The permittee must reduce … emissions … by venting through one or more closed vents …”. In my estimation, a closed-vent system is different than one or more closed vents. While closed vents may or may not trap emissions and keep them from entering the environment, the intention of the regulation is to allow emissions to flow to a control device with nearly 100% of the emissions reaching the control device and, after neutralization, entering the atmosphere. In addition to not clearly defining the capture of the emissions, the current permit condition could result in pressure buildup that could result in emergency conditions and, under emergency conditions, the regulations would allow for circumvention of the requirement. This should be corrected.

On page 179, the compliance demonstration method for Emission Point A14 Emission Limitation 2 seems to be missing initial compliance. How do you know if 99+% control efficiency is being achieved without testing? How do you know that the vents are closed vent systems with no verification?

On page 179, Emission Point A14 has no Testing Requirements. If this is truly the requirement, the Statement of Basis should explain.
50. On page 180, recordkeeping requirements seem to be missing some requirements of 40 CFR 63.2525.

Emission Point A16

On Page 181 Emission Point A16, it appears that existing source limits are being used, but isn’t it a new source?

On page 181, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is not referenced.

On or about page 181, Emission Point A16 is missing some 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c) and some Recordkeeping Requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c) are not included.

On page 181, Emission Point A16 seems to be missing some requirements of 40 CFR 63.9005.

On page 181, Emission Point A16 Emission Limitation 2 seems to be different than the regulatory requirement. First, none of the regulatory requirements in Table 1 or 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN seem to include any provisions for “venting through one or more closed vents to any combination of control devices”. I presume that this is because leaks of HCl are dangerous and requirements for closed vent systems are therefore unnecessary. If the Division for Air Quality is attempting to include a requirement for a closed vent system, it should be stated more clearly. Second, the Emission Limitation doesn’t identify which requirements within Table 1 are applicable. Third, according to 40 CFR 63.8990(c), facilities which commence construction after September 18, 2001 are defined as new sources. On page 181 of the permit, Emission Point A16 is described as commended in 2005. Based on this information, it appears that Item 5 of Table 1 is applicable but the requirement identified in the permit corresponds to Item 1 of Table 1. Based on the available information, the Emission Limitation in the permit does not appear to match the regulatory requirement (99% should be 99.4%, 20 ppmv should be 12 ppmv, and another limitation for control of Cl2 emissions should be present with the limits described by the regulation).

On page 181, Emission Point A16 Emission Limitation 2 has a compliance demonstration. If the Emission Limitation is incorrect, was compliance truly initially demonstrated. This should be addressed.

On page 182, Emission Point A16 has no Testing Requirements. Based on the content of 40 CFR 63.9015, testing appears to apply. Even if the applicable test requirements are elsewhere in the permit, page 182 should reference the location within the permit. Is the testing absence due to a regulatory interpretation that only an initial test and a repeat test 5 years later is required? If so, and control efficiency changes, why isn’t testing ever repeated after the initial repeat?

Please provide EPA guidance and other support for an interpretation that allows for only 1 repeat test after the initial performance testing.

On page 182, Emission Point A16 Monitoring Requirement 4 contains Operating Limitations. The portion that states “Flow meters shall be installed to monitor the F-32 vent scrubber recirculation flow rate, F-32 vent scrubber fresh water (make-up) flow rate and the total flow rate of the F-32 drowning tower. A pH meter shall be installed to measure the pH in the vent scrubber” is 1 or more Operating Limitations.

If the meters have already been installed, this requirement should really include a phrases about operating the meters.

On page 182 under Recordkeeping Requirements, a LDAR plan is referenced. If the LDAR plan is applicable to this emission point there should be additional operating, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements related to LDAR on or about page 182.

Under Emission Point A16 Reporting Requirement 6c, there is a reference to a compliance report. It is assumed that this is the compliance report from Reporting Requirement 6b but the condition does not clearly state that.

Under Emission Point A16 Reporting Requirement 6d, the statement is unclear, and should be modified to read: “For each deviation from Emission Limitation 2, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the compliance report of Specific Reporting Requirement 6b must include the information in 40 CFR 63.9050(d)(1) through (9).” As is, there is unnecessary redundancy, terms are unclear (for example, I think “emission limitation in this subpart” is actually Emission Limitation 2), there is a lot of extraneous verbage, and the information to be submitted is, by strict interpretation of the condition, undefined (since every paragraph in Section B of the permit is a number).

Under Emission Point A16 Reporting Requirement 6e, the statement would be much clearer if changed to read: “Report all deviations as defined in 40 CFR 63 Subpart NNNNN in the semiannual monitoring report required by SECTION F.6 of this permit. If the permittee submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 6 of 40 CFR 63 Subpart NNNNN along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by SECTION F.6 and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation in this permit, submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the permittee may have to report deviations from other permit requirements to the Cabinet.”

On page 184, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A is missing.

On page 184, based on the regulatory citation in Monitoring Requirement 4b, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is missing.

Emission Point A21

Emission Point A21 is confusing as written. First, it is unclear why the venting arrangement make a difference concerning which regulations apply. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF applies to miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units without regard to where the units are vented. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN seems to apply to HCl process vents without regard to which control device the vent is associated. Second, the applicability statement describes existing sources but, based on the commencement date, new source standards seem to apply. Additionally, the Statement of Basis does not illuminate either of these issues. The applicability needs to be explained further and potentially corrected.

Under Emission Point A21, on page 184, the overlap of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN seems contrary to regulation. If 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF is applicable and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS is made applicable by 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF, then 40 CFR 63.8985(b)(4) exempts the emission point from 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN applicability.

On page 184, applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN is unclear with regard to fugitive emission from Emission Point A21. The applicability statements on page 184 do not acknowledge the fugitive emissions but Record Keeping Requirement 5dv includes a LDAR plan (which will typically apply to the fugitive emissions).

Most requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart SS seem to have been omitted.

On or about page 185, Emission Point A21 appears to be missing some 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A requirements. For example, Operating Limitations containing provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), and 40 CFR 63.8(c).

On page 185, Emission Point A21 seems to be missing some requirements of 40 CFR 63.9005.

Under Emission Point A21, is Arkema determining if each emission stream is a halogenated vent stream or is Arkema electing to designate all emission streams as halogenated? This needs to be clarified and, if a determination is being made for each stream, then associated record keeping requirements are needed.

Assuming that 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN is applicable to Emission Point A21, on page 185, Emission Point A21 Emission Limitation 2a seems to be different than the regulatory requirement. First, none of the regulatory requirements in Table 1 or 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN seem to include any provisions for “venting through one or more closed vents to any combination of control devices”. This is discussed further in another comment. Second, the Emission Limitation doesn’t identify which requirements within Table 1 are applicable. Third, according to 40 CFR 63.8990(c), facilities which commence construction after September 18, 2001 are defined as new sources. On page 184 of the permit, Emission Point A21 is described as commenced in 2005. Based on this information, it appears that Item 5 of Table 1 is applicable but the requirement identified in the permit corresponds to Item 1 of Table 1. Therefore, based on the available information, the Emission Limitation in the permit does not match the regulatory requirement (99% should be 99.4%, 20 ppmv should be 12 ppmv, and another limitation for control of Cl2 emissions should be present with the limits described by the regulation).

Assuming that 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF is applicable to Emission Point A21, on page 185, Emission Point A21 Emission Limitation 2b is unclear. First, Table 2 of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF applies to batch process vents instead of continuous process vents. Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF applies to continuous process vents. Which table is intended to be applicable? Second, the Emission Limitation doesn’t identify which requirements within the table are applicable.

Under Emission Point A21, additional permit deficiencies similar to previous comments are found and need correction.

Other Emission Points

Under Emission Points A22, A26, A33, A 34, 89, deficiencies similar to those identified in previous comments seem to exist, particularly with reference to Subpart A applicability, new source status, and compliance reporting. Please correct.

For Emission Point CP, permit deficiencies similar to previous comments seem to exist. Please look into Subpart A applicability, basis of the transfer efficiency, basis of the filter control efficiency, opacity comments, and no regulatory citation on requirements 4 and 5a.

Under Emission Point 84, it is unclear why 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MMMM has no requirements, and shot blasting should be subject to 401 KAR 59:010.

Under Emission Point FX7, permit deficiencies similar to previous comments seem to exist. Please look into Subpart A applicability, and record keeping comments.

Insignificant Activities

In accordance with 40 CFR 63.8985(a)(1), a HCl production facility is the collection of unit operations and equipment associated with the production of liquid HCl product. The HCl production facility begins at the point where a gaseous stream containing HCl enters the HCl production unit and includes all HCl storage tanks that contain liquid HCl product that is produced in the HCl production unit…. Based on this definition, it appears that several of the K-98 Plant insignificant activities should not be so classified.

Under insignificant activities in the F-134a plant, some of the activities are vented to a combustion device or a scrubber type device. These do not seem like insignificant activities. What review has the Division for Air Quality done to confirm these are insignificant activities? Do any 40 CFR Part 63 regulations apply to these?

General Comments

On page 144, use of the phrase “for the applicable emission limits or work practice standards” in Operating Limitation 1 is confusing. The limit should be rewritten as follows: “Due to requirements of 40 CFR 63.9005(c), the permittee shall develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)”. Likewise on pages 277, 278, 280, and 281, use of the phrase “for the applicable emission limits or work practice standards” in requirements 7, 10, 13, and 16, respectively, is confusing and should be rewritten.

On page 45 of the draft permit, the origin of an emission factor is described for EP GR1 but compliance provisions for EP AH and EP AI utilize an undefined emission factor. Additionally, the Statement of Basis does not provide information on this emission factor. Can compliance with the EP AH and EP AI limits be demonstrated utilizing any emission factor (whether it has a basis or not)? If not, clarification is needed.

On pages 47, 50, 53, 56, 60, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the draft permit, Emission Limitation 2a has a compliance demonstration. Why isn’t testing used to demonstrate compliance? While continual testing is infeasible, testing should be utilized, at least initially, to demonstrate compliance unless there is a sound reason why it is not necessary (such as the maximum potential to emit being significantly below the limit even during malfunctions). Without testing, the compliance provisions do not currently seem adequate for compliance demonstration.

On page 45 of the draft permit, the origin of an emission factor is described for EP GR1 but compliance provisions for Emission Points 38, E8, 39, and 41 utilize an emission factor without a stated origin on pages 47, 50, 53, and 56, respectively. The Statement of Basis does not provide information on these emission factors. Without any stated basis for the emission factors, how does one know that compliance is being demonstrated?

On pages 48, 51, 54, and 57 of the draft permit, Emission Limitation 2b has a compliance demonstration. If the Council understands correctly, uncontrolled emission points have an emission limitation that can be violated every 6 minutes of every day, but no parameter related in any way to this limit is being monitored and nobody is required to do any check on opacity for 7 days, and the monitoring that is done on the 7th day doesn’t definitively demonstrate compliance because it is not an approved test method.

Assuming that the limits could be exceeded due to malfunctions, isn’t more frequent monitoring justified? Given the difficulty and cost of compliance demonstration utilizing the approved testing method, shouldn’t valid testing be conducted periodically (regardless of the unapproved testing observations)? Weekly Method 9 tests should not be too onerous.

On pages 47, 50, 53, and 56 of the draft permit, shouldn’t operating limitations (such as a requirement to take corrective measures), additional record keeping (such as requirements to record each emission limit exceedance and corrective measures taken), and reporting requirements be imposed for instances when the opacity limitation is exceeded or the particulate emission limitation may have been exceeded? The described permit provisions currently do not seem to be adequate for compliance verification with the standards.

Compliance provisions for Emission Points PLA, PLB, PLD, PLE, PLF, PLH, and PLI utilize an emission factor without a stated origin on pages 60, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, and 80, respectively. Additionally, control efficiencies are provided without justification and the Statement of Basis does not provide additional details for this information.

Without any stated basis for the information, it is impossible to determine whether compliance is being demonstrated? Second, without any monitoring of the fabric filter, how does anyone know if the filter is providing the stated control efficiency? The control efficiency may decrease over time, therefore, the compliance provisions do not currently seem adequate for a true compliance demonstration.

On pages 60, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the draft permit, Emission Limitation 2a has a compliance demonstration. Given that compliance seems to require a control device, shouldn’t Arkema monitor the filter periodically (for example, daily)? While utilization of a control device is desired, typically monitoring of the control device is needed. The draft permit does not currently seem to account for monitoring of the control device and thus the compliance provisions do not currently seem adequate for a true compliance demonstration.

On pages 61, 65, 69, 72, 74, 78, and 81 of the draft permit, Emission Limitation 2b has a compliance demonstration. If the Council understands these compliance demonstration correctly, controlled emission points have an emission limitation that can be violated every 6 minutes of every day, yet no parameter related in any way to this limit is being monitored (not even fabric filter condition) and nobody is required to do any check on opacity for 7 days. The monitoring that is done on the 7th day doesn’t definitively demonstrate compliance because it is not an approved test method. More frequent monitoring is needed, and 7 days is too much time between observations.

On pages 60, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the draft permit, additional operating limitations (such as requirements to take corrective measures and maintain properly functioning filters), additional record keeping (such as requirements to record each emission limit exceedance, daily filter observations, and corrective measures taken), and reporting exist should be required for instances when the opacity limitation is exceeded or the particulate emission limitation may have been exceeded.

Conclusion

In closing, the Council is concerned that the draft permit is insufficiently comprehensive in incorporating and making enforceable as a practical matter, the emissions limits, operating limits, compliance demonstration, testing, and recordkeeping requirements applicable to this category of facilities, and that the Statement of Basis is insufficient in explaining the basis for adoption of proposed permit conditions. The Council respectfully requests that this draft permit be withdrawn, and that the permit and statement of basis be revised to address each of the apparent deficiencies identified in these comments.

Cordially,

/s/

Tom FitzGerald
Director

Contact Information
Privacy Policy
Webmaster & Acknowledgments
Contributions