The DuPont Spruance Plant respectfully submits the following in support of the petition submitted to the State Air Pollution Control Board (“the Board”) by the Virginia Manufacturers Association (“VMA”) and published in Volume 30, Issue 9 of the Virginia Register of Regulations, dated December 30, 2013.
DuPont is a member company of the VMA. The DuPont Spruance Plant is facility located in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is owned and operated by DuPont. The address of the DuPont Spruance Plant is 5401 Jefferson Davis Highway, Richmond, Virginia 23234 (tele. 804-383-2000). As a result of its location in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the DuPont Spruance Plant is directly affected by the regulations addressed in this petition.
The currently required 5-year lookback period is unduly restrictive and as VMA stated in their petition has the potential for “confiscation” of our facility’s productive capacity. Business cycles do occur and can vary greatly in duration and intensity. The “Great Recession” is a real case in point. Some of our production units to this day remain below pre-Recession production rates. New capacity expansion projects in such units would be at a distinct disadvantage as a result of the short 5-year lookback period when determining permitting applicability. It should also be noted that as a result of the “Great Recession,” a number of capacity expansion projects have been delayed. If such delays made it necessary to re-visit permitting applicability, the 5-year lookback period would include much of the very slow business cycle period. It could result that permitting of these very same expansion projects could result in subjecting such units to even stricter permit requirements. It’s for these reasons that we believe the 10-year lookback period is more reasonable and would capture an entire business cycle.
As VMA stated in their petition, there is no compelling reason for Virginia’s more restrictive approach by not allowing different baseline periods for each different pollutant. An assumption is being made that all pollutants will increase or decrease in an identical manner (at the same rate) as production increases or decreases. At our facility, this has not always been shown to be the case. For example, we have a section of a production unit that produces a polymer which is shipped to a number of domestic and international facilities. This area is primarily a source of VOC’s. Another area of the same production unit produces a yarn product which is a mainly a source of particulates. Both areas, although considered a part of the same emission unit, can operate independently of one another. For example, the polymer production area can continue to run (in order to supply these other facilities) while the yarn facility is shut down. Thus, the emissions of VOC and particulate could operate in an essentially independent manner. As a result, requiring the same consecutive period for each different regulated NSR pollutant can place this facility at a significant disadvantage with regards to permitting applicability.
The DuPont Spruance facility has not considered applying for a Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) due to the elaborate permitting process, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. However, we do recognize that there may be benefits to a facility owner/operator since compliance with a PAL may eliminate recurring major NSR concerns and provide needed certainty to the facility owner/operator over the duration of the PAL. Under the currently more-restrictive Virginia regulations, the duration of the PAL is restricted to only five years (vs. the 10-year PAL duration allowed by the EPA). This short renewal cycle serves as an even greater disincentive to businesses to apply for such a permit. The PAL is based on the past actual emissions of that pollutant. As stated in section “a” above, a 10-year business cycle is more reasonable/realistic since studies have shown (as well as our actual experience) that it may take a considerable period for businesses to recover from significant economic downturn periods such as the last major recession. So, for this reason and also for the certainty businesses need in order to survive in today’s ever increasingly demanding environment, we agree with the “VMA” petition that the Virginia regulations be changed to allow for 10-year PAL duration. The more restrictive Virginia PAL duration also places Virginia manufacturing facilities at a distinct competitive disadvantage in comparison to other states which could have the effect of influencing companies to locate their manufacturing facilities in a less-restrictive state.
The DuPont Spruance facility is in agreement with VMA’s view that a replacement unit that is similar to the unit being replaced should not be considered as a brand new unit but rather as a unit “modification.” It is simply unreasonable and punitive to consider the unit being replaced as having zero emissions. The unit being replaced would likely have relevant historical data that could be used to establish an actual emissions baseline or projection of future actual emissions for such new units. In addition, if Virginia air regulations were left unchanged with regards to the replacement unit provisions, it could likely place our facility at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to most other states that have adopted the EPA replacement unit provisions as written and thus with less onerous permitting regulations. DuPont Spruance has a number of significant competitors with regards to our various product lines. Thankfully, we have not had to replace any emission units since Virginia adopted the much more restrictive Replacement unit provisions. Without the EPA’s Replacement unit provisions, DuPont Spruance could face a significant loss of business due the expense of required unreasonably high level of emission controls, higher permitting fees, considerable amount of time to obtain a major NSR permit due to the increased permit complexity and required EPA and public comment periods involved.