p.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

85) ll-C-43 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200810:22:20 AM Sheet 85 of 147 
F P.2 

\# -_t__r. 

uo cr n r-i* 

c 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION I 

J.P. KEMNEOY FEOERaU. 8UILOINQ, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02201-3211 

A-^o 37 

TX-c-H-3 

OPTION*. K*W»f t<

T'0°l 

June 29, 1994 

Dennis Keschl, Director 

Bureau of Air Quality Control 

Department of Environmental Protection 

State House, station No. 17 

Augusta, Maine 04333-474$ 

I iiiii 

i, .3>,2l.|995-

L. - -

EFAA:;!tT;:.TT 

Dear Mr. KeZ.! e : /i**** 

This letter is in response to a Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) inquiry dated January 7, 1994. As discussed in 

that inquiry, Louiciana Pacific Corporation (LPC) proposes to 

install two Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTOs) mandated as 

part of a 1993 consent deci.ee with EPA. Additionally, LPC 

propooco to increase the production rate at the facility from its 

mrrfinr. rate of 400 tone per day (TPD) ot waterboard co 5ie TPD. 

LPC ib located in New Limerick, Maine which is part of the ozone 

transport region. The central question is whether the N0X 

emissions increases trom the RTOs ar«^ subject to the 

nonattainment area new source review (NSR) requirements; 

in summary, the RTOs will cause a significant net emissions 

increase of N0„ and therefore arc subject to nonattainment area 

NSR. Therefore, I.PC must secure sufficient emission reductions 

ot NO. to offset che emissions increase associated with the 

installation of the RTOe. Because the RTOs will substantially 

reduce the VOC emissions and are required by a federal consent 

decree, EPA will not object it DEP issues LPC a license to 

conotruct before the company secures the required N0X offsets as 

long as the DEP incorporates appropriate provisions within the 

license. Regarding the LPC proposal to increase production at 

the facility, EPA has determined that this change is also subject 

to the nonattainment area NSR provisions for NOX. ;• The following 

paragraphs will further explain the EPA'3 position. 

Background - DEt's Position 

The DEP performed net-.ting calculations which indicate a total N0K 

emissions increase of 92 tuns per year (TPY), 60 TPY associated 

with the RTOc and 32 TPY associated with the production increase. 

MVNTCO Cm a*e<;*i;i.tu rAfera 
DEtf contends that Since the installation of the RTOs ia mandated 

as part of a federal consent decree and is not a voluntary 

modification initiated by LPC, the associated N0K emissions 

Should be waived from the NSR offset requircmente. Furthermore, 

the DEP contends that if the increase in N0A emissions from the 

RTOs is discounted, the NOx"lncrease associated with the 

production increase would not be significant and would not 

qualify as a major modification subject to the NSR requirements. 

Issues Associated with the RTOa 

EPA recognizes tnat LPC's installation of the RTOs is a 

requirement of a federal consent decree and that the project will 

provide an environmental benetit.1 However, LPC cannot be 

excused from the Clean Ail' Act requirement to obtain emieeion 

offsets for oignificant.net emission increases of N0K. The 

consent decree, settling EPA's enforcement action against LPC, 

does not provide a waiver from the offset requirement. 

Consequently, LPC must meet the offset requirement. 

EPA realizes that emission offBet3 of NOx are not r&adily 

available in Maine. Therefore, to expedite the installation of 

the RTOs, EPA would not object if the DEP issuee a license to 

construct before the company secures the required N0X offsets 

provided that certain provisions are contained within LPC's 

license. Specifically, the license must contain an explicit, 

enforceable condition otating that LPC must obtain federallyenforceable offsets as soon as possible, but in no case later 

than December 31, 1995. EPA reserves the right to enforce 

against LPC if the company does not obtain the required offsets 

by this date. Tn addition, the DEP must amend the license to 

include enforceable offset provisions once LPC identifiee, 

quantifies and cecuree these reductions. 

Production Increase Issues 

The DEP Stated in its letter that, if the NOx emissions increase 

associated with the operation of the RTOs was waived from NSR 

offset requirements, the production increase proposed by LPC 

1 The RTOs will substantially reduce voc emissions from the 

facility. The netting calculations indicate a creditable VOC 

emissions decrcaoc of only 13.14 TPY. However, please note that 

since the source's actual emissions were well above the emissions 

currently allowed in LPC's license, only a email portion.of the 

total VOC reduction are creditable, EPA calculates a total VOC 

emissions reduction Of 310.4 TPY based on Lhe current actual 

emissions at 400 TPD production and a reduction of 418.1 TPY 

based on the potential emissions at 518 TPD production. (See 

environmental benetit calculation contained in the Enclosure.) 
P.4 

u o cr r-i 

would not in itself qualify as major modification and would not 

be oubjcct to' the NGR requirements. LPC is applying for the 

installation of the RTOs along Mith a production increaoc. In 

addition, the netting calculations incorporate both the RTOs and 

the production increaoc. Therefore, the DEP should not view 

these separately for NSR applicability purposes. Furthermore, 

E PA reviewed the -netting calculations and has determined that 

there will be a significant net emicoiono increase of N0X from 

the production increase. (See Enclosure.) Therefore, the 

production increase is subject to the nuuattaiutueut area NSR 

requirements. 

EPA calculated the net emissions increase of N0X using the most 

recent, federally enforceable N0X emissions allowed in LPC's air 

emission license. This is because the facility's current actual 

emissions are well above the facility's licensed, federally 

enforceable emissions. If the current actual emissions were 

used, the netting calculations would produce an artificially low 

N0X emissions increaoc and, consequently, reward the facility for 

operating out of compliance. 

With regard to emission reduction credits (i.e., offsets), EPA 

requires the reductions to be surplus, quantifiable, permanent, 

and federally enforceable before a permit to construct may be 

issued. In addition, the offsets must be in effect before the 

modified source commences operation. (See Letter to Dennis 

Keschl dated March 1, 1994.) 

If the DEP decides to allocate Burplus emission reduction credits 

from ito enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program to LPC 

for the production increase, it should follow the criteria 

outlined in EPA's Match 1st letter, with regard to tederai 

enforceability, EPA will not objoct if the DEP issues LPC's 

permit to construct prior to EPA approval of Maine's enhanced I/M 

program that will geueiate the offsetting N0X reductions, as long 

as LPC's permit contains a federally enforceable condition that 

expressly prohibits the commencement of any actual operations 

associated with the production increase until EPA'S approval Of 

Maine's enhanced l/M SIP submittal that will generate the 

offsets. In addition, Maine should follow the other reguirements 

for issuing the license and quantifying the reductions outlined 

in the March 1st letter. 
P.5 

1 1 Pi V I -' 

Offset Amount 

EPA netting calculations indicate the installation of the RTOs 

and the production increase will cause a Significant net 

emissions increase of 1S3.6 TPY NO^. Based "on the offset ratio 

of 1.15 to 1 applicable in the ozone transport region, LPC shall 

be required to obtain a total of 176.6 TPY of N0X emissions 

offsets.2 (flee Enclosure for EPA's calculations.) 

If you or your otaff have any questions about our determination 

in this letter or the associated calculations in the enclosure, 

please contact Bxendan Mccahill of my start at (617) 565-3262. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Linda M. Murphy, Direeto(J 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 

Enclosure 

cc- Debrah Richard Maine DEP 

Bryce Sproul - Maine DEP 

John Chandler - Maine DEP 

Marc Cone - Maine DEP 

Peter Chase - Operations Manager, LPC 

7

 The DEP asked EPA the following question: If Maine were 

to pursue and obtain a N0X waiver from the nonattainment area NSK 

requirements in the N0R attainment areas of Maine located within 

the OTR, could the DE P "free up" previously allocated NO offsets 

and approve them for other uoc. EPA has determined that if Maine 

obtains EPA approval of a N0A waiver for these areas, the DEP 

could re-examine the uae and allocation Of these Offsets. (Please 

note, however, that Maine could only reallocate those emission 

reduction credits which are generated after the time of EPA's 

approval of the N0X waiver.) 
P.6 

idfc).'l /•• HIT. Ul1.

1 

ENCLOSURE 

NETTING CAIiCTTTATIONS 

Allowable. Current and Potential Emiooion Levels 

On November 9, 1981, the DEP issued an aiz emissions license to 

the LPC which was amended on December 17, 1981 and again on 

Januaxy 27, 1982. The license authorized LPC to construct and 

operate a 34 0 TPD wafcrboard manufacturing facility in New 

Limerick, Maine. On April 7, 1988, the DEP granted a license 

renewal which alau included amendments to the original 

construction licenses. Table 1 shows the NOK and VOC emission 

limits from the 1988 license. 

Tahle 1 

Allowable Eiuibaiou Limits at 240 '1'ifU 

Dryers Oil Heaters Total 

NO. 7. .91 LB/HR 

12.74 TPY 

1.97 LB/HR 

8.63 TPY 

4.00 LB/HR 

21.37 TPY 

VOC 7. 2Pi T.R/HR 

31.88 TPY 

4.92 LB/HR 

21. bb TPY 

12.20 LD/HR 

53.43 TPY 

As indicated in a DEP memorandum dated March 30, 1994, LPC 

protested the production limit of 240 TPD. Through a state 

enforcement action,3 LPC in allowed to operate at a production 

rate of 400 TPD aa luiiy as the particulate matter emissions limit 

of the 1900 license renewal were met by LPC. The DEP indicated 

that the facility is in compliance with this requirement. In a 

letter dated March 17, 1994, the DEP supplied EPA the actual 

emissions? rates for NO and VOCs at a production rate of 400 TPD. 

These rates are shown in table 2. 

Table 2 

Actual Emission Rates at 400 TPD 

NO. 

Dryers 

8.8 LB/HR 

38;5 TPY 

Press Vents 

0.0 LB/IIR 

0 TPY 

Oil Heaters 

9.70 LB/HR 

42.5 TPY 

Total 

18.5 LB/HR 

81.0 ITY 

VOC 50.67 LB/HR 

222 TPY 

27.00 LB/HR 

118.30 TPY 

0.75 LB/HR 

3.3 TPY 

78.4 LB/HR 

343.6 TPY 

Note that thia consent decree is not federally 

enforceable. 
P.7 

idB./iv./y

/

i 11: 

During 1991-1992, EPA found several LPC facilities across the 

country including the facility at New liimerick to be in violation 

of variouo SIP requirements regarding VOC emissions. AS part of 

the settlement, I.PC agreed to the installation and operation of 

the RTOs at the LPC facility in New Limerick by March 1, 1995. 

TiPC is also planning during this time period to increase 

production from the actual rate of 400 TPD to a potential of 518 

TPD. Table 3 gives the potential emission rates at 518 TPD 

without RTOs. Table 4 gives the potential emissionu rates at 518 

TPD with the RTOs. 

Table 3 

Potential Emission Rates at 518 TPD without RTOs 

NO. 

Dryers 

11.66 LB/HR 

52.00 TrY 

Press Vente 

0 LB/HK 

0 TPY 

O il Heater s 

14.6 1 l.K/HR 

64.0 0 TPY 

Total 

26.5 LB/HR 

llb.U TPY 

VOC 65.6 LB/HR 

287.0 TPY 

34.95 LB/HK 

153.10 TPY 

2.55 LB/HR 

11.20 TPY 

103.1 LB/HR 

451.3 TPY 

Table 4 

Potential Emission Rates at 518 TPD with RTOs 

NO. 18.56 LB/HR 

81.30 TPY 

6.78 LB/HR 

29.70 TPY 

14.61 LB/HR 

64.00 TPY 

39.95 LB/HR 

175.00 TPY 

VOC 3.28 LB/HR 

14.36 TPY 

1.7 5 LB/HR 

7.6 7 TPY 

2.5 S LD/IIR 

11.2 0 TPY 

7.56 LB/HR 

33.20 TPY 

Netting Calculations 

As defined in Paragraph 2, Section III.B.4 of the EPA's "New 

Source Workshop Manual", for an existing unit, actual emissions 

just prior to either a physical or operational change are based 

on the lower of the actual or allowable emissions levelo. LPC's 

most recent, fedeially enforceable allowable emissions levels are 

lower than the current actual emissions levels. Netting 

calculations using the correct netting criteria are shown below: 
P.8 

oo CP n r-i t. r. 

Future 

Potential 

Emission Level 

510 TPD With RTO 

Dxyers (1) 

NO. 18.56 T.R/HR 

VOC 3.28 LB/HR 

Oil Heaters (2) 

NOx 14.61 LB/HR 

VOC 2.55 LB/HR 

Press Vents (2) 

NO. C.76 LB/HR 

Lower of 

Existing 

Actual or 

Allowable 

2.91 LB/HR 

7.28 LB/HR 

1.97 LB/HR 

0.75 LB/HR 

0.00 LB/hK = 

Net Emissions 

15.65 LB/HR (68.54 TPY) 

•4.00 LB/HR (-17.52 TPY) 

12.64 LB/HR 

1.80 LB/IIR 

(55.36 TPY) 

(4.38 TPY) 

6.78 LB/HR (29.69 TPY) 

(1) Based on the licensed level (540 TPD) 

(2) VOC emissions based on curxent actual level (in compliance). 

NO based on licensed level. 

(3) The press vents should have been addressed in the original 

permit but were not. Without this information, It would be 

complicated to calculate the lower of actual or allowable VOC 

emissions. Since the voc emissions calculations did not effect 

the concluoions presented in this letter, they were not included 

here. 

Total Net Emissions Increase 

N 0 K 

VOC 

Dryers 

68.54 TPY + 

-17. 52 TPY 1-

Heaters 

55.36 TPY + 

4.38 TPY + 

Vents 

29.69 

O.OU 

TPY 

TPY 

Net Emissions 

153.59 TPY 

-13.14 TPY 

Based upon the revised calculations, DEP*8 assertion that the 

proposed LPC production increaoc would generate 32 TPY of 

additional NOx appears to be incorrect. A quick estimate 

indicates that by subtracting the NOx emissions increase due to 

the RTOs from the revised total net emissions -increase, the NO 

emissions increase from the production increase would be 94.6 TPY 

(153.6 TPY - 50.0 TrY* - 94. C TPY). This indicates that if the 

* Tho 59 TPY NO increase was calculated by subtracting the 

potential emissions level at 518 TPD without RTO from the 

potential emissions level at 518 with KTU (1/4.96 TPY - 115.91 

TPY = ^9 TPY) . All emissions lcvcl3 were obtained from the LPC 

BACT analysis for the New Limerick facility dated August 31, 

1992. 

3 
P.9 

U O c r i-i 

f- r* 

NO emissions increase associated with the RTOs was excluded from 

NSR, the proposed production rate increase would itself be a 

major modification subject to the N3R requirements. 

Environmental Benefit 

Since the RTOs only provide a creditahle net emission, decrease of 

13.14 TPY for VOCs as opposed to a 153 TPY increase in NO , they 

do not appear to provide a. substantial net environmental benefit. 

However, most of the reductions achieved are not creditable 

because a source cannot take credit for operating out Of 

compliance. As shown below, the total reductions of VOCs 

emissions achieved by the RTOS is considerable. 

SlO TPD 400 TPD Total Reduction 

with RTOs (Actual) 

33.2 TPY - 343.6 TPY = -310.4 TPY VOC 

518 TPD bib TPD 

with RTOo without RTOs 

33.2 TPY - 451.3 TPY = -418.1 TPY VOC 

These numbers indicate that the RTOs provide a substantial 

environmental benefit.