Table Of Content

west virginia department of environmental protection Prien of ar Qty suai Cap Caine Sete ors nee SE piers hates HY 28 Phone 304) 9264075, April 27, 2018 Ms. Gerallyn Duke Acting Associate Directo US. EPA. Region IIT Ofies of Permits and Suate Programs (3AP1A) 1650 Atch SL VhiladeIphia, PA *9105. 028 RF: Response to Comments ROXUT. TSA, Ine RAN Facil Permit No, K-37 Plant ID No. 037-410108 Dear Mis, Duke: ‘On April25, 2018, the West Vigg!nia Division of Air Quality (DAQ) roveived a letter from sou with comments cricerniny ROXUL USA, Ine."s (ROXUL's) Preliminary Dererntiaution’Fact Sheet (PDAS) and Pru? Permit (2144-00971. The DAQ would like 6 thank yoa um the timely submission of the commonts and take this oppor! ity co vespeind la such below. COMMENTS ON MODELING REPORE Comment I: Morteted I-Hour $0, Violations USBI'A provided comments and reconmendation, enncersing the modeled exceedances of the F-huawe SO, NAAQS inthe muti-sewree modeling performed as part of ROXT.'s the air dispersion meadelings ancl, DAQ Kesponse: As indieated in you comments, the DAQ's modling analysis demonstrates that ROXUL doesnot xignificantly contibuew any afthe modeled |-howr SO, NAAQS violations and, therefore, can proveeé through the permitting proess. Mowuver, the DAQ will reviews these predicted exceedances of the I-hour SO, NAAQS and inke uny actions thereta (and taking into ‘cousideration your recommendations) hat may be determined to be appropiate Promoting a healthy environment. Comment 2: ROXUL Metiing Furnace 30-Day SO, Ezvission Limit SEPA provided comments concerning the nse ofa 30-Day Rolling Average SO; Emission Litt on the Melting burrawce ond requested « alscussion on the expected variability of the actus SO, emission rate fi the vei DAQ Response: As tots in your comments, the DAQ belisves thot. the approne len to validate the 80, 30-day rolling average compliance demonsttion is reasonable ad has similar prooodent ‘mols rcoem permilting actions’SIP demonstrations and is yenerally suppored 'n yudance. AS ‘the emissina vi SO, is fuclsbased and well cortrolled by the vsrbent injection syalcen, there isnot expected to be significant variability in ac 8O, emissions, However, uo mitigate the possibilty a ‘uanepresentative short-term exceedarces, KOXLT.equesled (and validated, us oared above) the 3 day rolling average SO, compliance demionstativn, Comment 3: PM2,$ Trcrentent Modeling/Source Trigger Dutex USEPA provided comments concerning the conservative nature nf the PMC2.5 Increment Modelieg Analysis and requested a discussion uf om minor source haseline igaerhis lie. AQ Response: WVDAQ's modeling analysis derionstrates thal no modeled exceedances of the ‘nerements ae predicted, Aliaough the approwch used wiay he vanservalive, the DAQ believes that fhe analysis method is appropriate and relevant for usc in the permiting process tive ROXUL. ‘The tose of this mote vonservative apprasch ia this ROXUL modeling aualysis wll, howewse, not 1celnde thonn the DAQ accepting a Tess conservative methwdology wen deemied reasonable or _aperopriate un nguse-by-case basis. Turther, a discussion of what minor source huncline dates were itiggered hy the ROXUL permitting process was included in the PL'#S on puge 40 and the relevant information is included again here for yous celerence, Minor Souree Baseline Triguering Pottutant [Werke County | deffeson County BO, Provimaly | RONUL (IPI) Pay Previowly | ROME (IBOLT) mM, Prev ONT (1231) 17) | xoxun q22u7) se | komca COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DETERWINATION FACTSHEET & DRATT PERMIT Comment 1: Phaved Permtiting USEPA provided comments concerniue the propuved ture construction and ws ofan xvgenplara to provide pure osygen tose melting faraace andthe potential impuct on NU, emusiomy DAQ Responue: On page 25 of the permit application, ROXUL statos tha" fafsygen wil be dined fo the Melting Furnace to envure oxygen enrichment Intell, axygen will he delivered ro the ste und stored in pressurtzed storage vessels; iter an: ansite oxygen plant i t0 be vonsiructed" hecefore. prior to che possible construction ofthe Oxygen Plant, RONUT wallluse tanked O, im tbe Melling Furmace. There should be uo difference in lhe temperature of the melting praeess whee ing tanked a manufactured Os, Paged ofa Conmuene 2: BACT limit for NO, C0, and $0, TISEP A reynested reavons for wiy the NO, CO, and SO. emission limits wore each based on a dit dey rolling average DAQ Response: First itis noted that the ywicl production prouins ie nota batch prices, #8 £506 ‘maueials ate coatinuously fed to the Meliag Furnace atthe sarne fire that melt (and subsequently rmincial wool) is proceed. Additionally, CO is not a PSD pollutant (faility-wide PTE is « 100 APY and ix permitted under the authority of WY Lexistative Rule 43CSR13 minor snurce Peewitling role), As disenssed in the ssuond comment an the modeling zepwst, USEPA has agreed. with respect to ‘SO, that the approeh taken by ROX. fn conducting adiStional air dispersion madching ata rate higher than the 30-day rolling everuge limit is a valid ampronch to mitigule Ike possibility of luntepessentaliveshort-crm exceedances, The DAQ believes tharthis apgrsach ale valid for NO, ibsbich, daw to potontial higher variability, was ciodeled at up to a'75% highgr rate than the 30-day Section 4.4.1 <page 38) of the ROXULs Air Quality Assessment provides a discussion ‘oF the sensitivity analysis done in support ol uke 30-<as rolfing averige limits Based on the results ofthe NO, senoitivily analysis, the lower emission mate of CO ltom the Melting ‘Fumace, und the touch higher NAAQS and SILs fer CO. the DAG bas determined thar a uy roting averaye for CCD is alsa reusomable, appropriule. andl valid for this specific omission unit ‘The DAQ believes that une modeled increases vonservatively represen! the anticipated actual variability ofemssions from: the Melting Furnuce. However, che Melling Furnace will have CEMS fer NO, CO, and $0, which will allow ler real-time roeuitoring of these pollinants. The DAG osorves the right (o revisit this issue with ROXUL if real-time emissions dats indicates that these seusitivity una yses do nor conservalively represent the vutisjpated actual vriabilty of emissions Comment 3: BACT Deternitatinn ESH/&d provided comments on DAQ's process af seloctng the BACT emission i BACT summery rable in the PES. ise the ase af DAG) Response: ‘Ihe DAQ (the “Administrwor’} did set BACT emission limits pursuant te the Uupphicable regulations us given under WY Legislative Rule 4SCSR I4 (sec Dratt Pe-mit R I4-DE3TH thal wore based on a teosamate top-down BACT Analysis as presented in permit application [U4 (9037, Its noted, that om page B.S5 of the drat New Soume Review Workshop Vlwanal, it stanes ta ‘eth gponabtity 2f the rer agency ort ts deeetan and atone presente Ff he BAC cicemmation an 1 onse st the applicant Rae obesed al os mcr eBactve cumrot apne thot colt be aptad ond: {2) deermine Oat the appliset her adept ‘Geman cea ia ey, omcnonmenal,o conve np atu ane proposal te elimina i nee elect contol Sto The DAQ did review ROXUL's BACT detesminstion and provided its conclusion that (sec page 37 ofthe PIES) "ROXEL reasonahiy convened a BACT wnalysis sing where gnpopwtate, the top dow analysin and eliminated tecfmotogies for valid reaswns, The B40 further concludes thee the selected BACT emission rates giver in the draft permit are achievable, are consistent where coprupriate with recent applicable BACT determinations, ak are accepuatay BACT. Farther, the DAQ cecepis the selected sechnologies as BACT Page tof Based on the DAQ’s determinetion thst ROXU.'s BACT determination was appropriate and reasonable. it was deeined us nol necessary to repiieatein llc PLS the very largoanalysis presented ‘nthe permit application hut instead provide 4 sur ary fin Table R) and referto the application for 1 detaled discussion of the BACT Comment ds Portable Cruster BACT Fit SEPA provided comments thot the use of an anual hoars of operation Kinit on the Porsable usher was not an appropriate BACT conteal srry. DAQ Response: While the DAQ doesn't necessarily agree that revritions om hours of eperation ‘or toroughp, on « casesby-case basis, an: never appropriate orrenonable as pastofu BACT contol sttategy GI noted that they are mit intended to scta precedert aud ate applied on a case-by-case basi) pursuant to Your consent, we wil note fo the nul determination thatthe Perable Crusher hours pf opcretion limit is not formally a BACT Til and thar the emission Timits given under 4.1.20) in the dealt permit arc not BACT liests Again, thank you for your timely comments cowering RI4-0(37, We will provide ‘oification when a fital determination is made repanding this permitting action, Shewld you have ‘any questions, please contact me: #1 304} 92640299 ext, 1219, ‘ToSeph R. Ressler, PR. Reginecr Paget of