Crompton Corporation (Formerly Witco
Corporation)
Regulatory Analysis
Regulatory
Analysis
Methyl Capper Unit Reliability Project
OSi Specialties, Inc. Project XL
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Regulation | Requirement | Status as Related to Capper Unit and Project XL Proposed Emissions Controls |
40 CFR Part 264 & 265, Subpart CC 47 WV CSR 35 (45 WV CSR 25 *) RCRA: Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers * 45 CSR 25 is not part of the WV State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act |
Control of organic emissions from surface impoundments ("SI*s") and wastewater collection systems upstream of the SI's. | Due to applicability to various process
units, absent Project XL OSi would replace SI*s with open tanks
of similar surface area. As part of NPDES wastewater treatment system,
new tanks and wastewater collection system are exempt from Subpart
CC.
Under Project XL, compliance with Subpart CC would be deferred with respect to the SI's, through the minimum Project term. |
40 CFR Part 264 & 265, Subpart CC 47 WV CSR 35 (45 WV CSR 25 *) RCRA: Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers * 45 CSR 25 is not part of the WV State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act |
Control of organic emissions from hazardous waste tanks and containers. | All hazardous waste tanks are currently operated so as to meet Subpart CC. Container requirements would still be met. |
40 CFR Part 60, Subparts NNN and RRR (45 WV CSR 16) Clean Air Act: New Source Performance Standards for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry ("SOCMI") distillation operations and reactor processes, respectively |
Subparts NNN and RRR require emission controls on any process unit for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after December 30, 1983 (for NNN) or June 29, 1990 (for RRR), and that produces any listed chemical (including methanol) as a product, by-product or intermediate. | The capper unit will not be modified,
constructed, or reconstructed. See discussion following this table.
Therefore, NNN and RRR do not apply. |
Proposed 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart YYY (Currently no proposed state counterpart) Clean Air Act: New Source Performance Standards for SOCMI Wastewater |
Subpart YYY, as proposed, applies to a process unit that generates certain wastewaters and produces one or more of the chemicals listed in '60.788 of this subpart as a product, co-product, by-product, or intermediate for which construction, modification, or reconstruction of the process unit commenced after 9/12/94. Control would be required for VOC emissions from wastewater collection and treatment system associated with an applicable SOCMI process unit (including SI*s, tanks and individual drain systems). | The capper unit will not be modified,
constructed, or reconstructed. See discussion following this table.
Therefore, YYY would not apply. In the event OSi modifies an existing unit, or constructs a new unit, in such a way so as to recover a listed chemical, YYY could apply. Given the anticipated compliance costs of YYY, OSi would not implement such recovery operations unless a deferral from YYY was available. Final rule expected to be effective in 1997, with compliance involving major capital improvements to wastewater systems required by year 2000. Subpart YYY would not require any emissions controls on process vents or fugitive emission points. |
45 WV CSR 13
Clean Air Act: Preconstruction Permitting |
Owner/operator constructing, modifying, or relocating a stationary source must obtain a construction permit. AModification@ includes, among other things, any physical change in or change in the method of operation of any existing stationary source which results in a greater than de minimis increase in emissions of any regulated air pollutant. | No increases in emissions will occur.
See discussion following this table.
Construction of the incinerator proposed under Project XL would require a Reg. 13 permit. (Requirement comes from 45 CSR 6.) The permit would be for the control device, and not for the production unit. |
45 WV CSR 14
Clean Air Act: Major Stationary Source Preconstruction Permitting in Attainment Areas ("PSD Review" or "Reg 14") |
Owner/operator performing a major modification at a major stationary source must undergo PSD Review (including, among other things, use of Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") for emissions control). "Major modification" means any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source which results in a Asignificant net emissions increase@ of any regulated pollutant. | Given the obligation under Project
XL to install and operate the vent incinerator, the capper unit
will not be modified, constructed, nor reconstructed because no
significant net increase in emissions could occur. See discussion
following this table.
Therefore, Reg 14 would not apply. |
40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart B Clean Air Act: Hazardous Air Pollutants: Control Requirements for control technology determinations for major sources in accordance with Clean Air Act sections 112(g) and 112(j) |
Incorporation of case-by-case New Source Maximum Achievable Control Technology ("MACT") determinations in construction or reconstruction of major stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants. | The capper unit will not be constructed
or reconstructed.
Therefore, 112(g) would not apply. |
40 CFR Part 63 (Proposal Anticipated)
Clean Air Act: Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (AMON@) Requirement for MACT |
The MON is anticipated to apply to a broad spectrum of chemical processes not regulated under other NESHAP rules. The rule is expected to include controls for process vents, and wastewater collection and treatment systems. | Assume that the MON would apply to
the capper unit, and that controls on both the production unit and
wastewaters would be required.
MON anticipated to be promulgated between 1999 and 2000, with compliance anticipated to be required June 2002 at the earliest. |
40 CFR Parts 261 and 268
RCRA: Proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (AHWIR@) |
Removes currently designated hazardous wastes from regulation if certain concentration limits are met. | Under HWIR as proposed, wastewater at Sistersville plant would no longer be hazardous waste. Therefore, Subpart CC would not apply to the SI*s nor the rest of the wastewater system. The rule is not expected to be effective prior to April 2001. |
Other Regulations | There are no other regulations that would require emissions controls be placed on the new capper unit or wastewater treatment unit. |
METHYL CAPPER UNIT RELIABILITY PROJECT
This discussion is intended to demonstrate that the reliability project will not trigger any preconstruction permitting or control technology requirements with respect to the capper unit.
Methyl Capper Reliability Project
Apart from its Project XL proposal, OSi Specialties is planning to improve the reliability of the Methyl Capper Unit at Sistersville, in order to meet current and expected product demand. The reliability project is expected to consist of replacement of the devolatilizers and the second stage steam ejectors vacuum system. Although engineering work for the reliability project is not yet complete, it is currently expected that the reliability project will not cause an increase in emissions rate from the existing unit, or an increase in the production rate of the unit. The reliability project will likely allow an increase in annual production volumes due to an increase in operating hours (decreased downtime of the equipment).
Relevant Regulations
Air regulations relevant to this reliability project include:
A. New Source performance Standards (Subparts NNN, RRR, YYY)
B. WV Preconstruction Permitting, Regulation 13
C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Regulations, Regulation 14
All three regulations are only applicable if there is a "construction," "re-construction," or "modification" of an emission source.
Not Construction
Clearly, the reliability project is not construction, since the unit already exists.
Not Re-Construction
"Reconstruction" generally means the replacement of components of an existing facility to such an extent that the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility. This is clearly not the case here. The reliability project is estimated to cost $1 million. An entirely new unit would cost approximately $8 million.
Modification: No Increase in Emissions
All three regulations generally define modification to be any physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emissions of regulated pollutants to the atmosphere. For purposes of Regulation 13, the increase must be above 2 lb/hr or 5 tons/yr. For purposes of PSD analysis under Regulation 14, the net increase must be 40 tons or more per year. Under these two programs, for units that have not yet begun "normal operations," the determination of whether the change causes an increase in emissions is made by comparing the actual emissions prior to the change with the "potential" emissions following the change. This "actual-to-potential" test often results in a finding of an increase where the "actual-to-actual" test would not. For purposes of the New Source Performance Standards, any increase in the hourly emission rate of the regulated pollutant would constitute a modification.
Modification: Hours of Operation Exemption
All three regulations exempt an increase in the hours of operation from being considered a modification.
Modification: "Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement"
All three regulations exempt routine maintenance, repair and replacement from being considered a modification. The purpose of the reliability project is replace obsolete, poorly functioning, or difficult to maintain and repair equipment.
Conclusions
OSi believes that he changes to the capper unit under the reliability project would be excluded from the definition of modification under the exclusions discussed above, and that the changes would not result in any increase of emissions under the "actual-to-actual" test. However, a determination of whether OSi is correct on these point is unnecessary because, an any event, the obligation to install and operate the event incinerator under Project XL ensures that no net significant increase in emissions will occur during the Project.
For example, under the applicable West Virginia regulations, PSD review applies to a "major modification." W. Va. Code § 45-14-6. A major modification is defined as a physical or operational change resulting in a significant net increase in emissions, subject to certain exceptions. W. VA. Code § 45-14-2.27. With respect to VOCs (as precursors to the criteria pollutant of ozone), a significant net increase is an increase in emissions resulting from the physical or operational change equal to or in excess of 40 tons per year. Even if the emissions following the change are calculated by reference to the emission unit's potential to emit, the impact of a pollution control device may be taken into account provided that the device is required under a state or federal consent order or permit. W. VA. Code § 45-14-2.39.
Under Project XL, OSi will be required under federal and state law to operate a vent incinerator on the capper unit so as to reduce certain vent stream emissions from the unit by 98%. This obligation would constitute an enforceable operational limit on the unit, and must be taken into account in determining potential to emit following the change. OSi has calculated that the potential to emit for the capper unit following the implementation of the reliability project and installation of the vent incinerator will be 147 tons less than the actual emissions prior to such changes. Thus, even under the stringent actual-to-potential test, no increase above historic actual emissions could occur.