Ms. Maria F. Cuadra 		Oct. 5, 2001
LDEQ-OES
Permits Division
Post Office Box 82135
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135	

REF: Public comments for the proposed DuPont 
Dow Elastomers permit, Review No. 17742, Agency 
Interest No. 38806.

Submitted by fax to fax number 225-765-0635 and 
mail.

Dear Ms. Cuadra,

	These public comments concerning the 
proposed permit for the DuPont Dow Title V, Part 
70 permit, Review Number 17742, are submitted on 
behalf of the Louisiana Environmental Action 
Network and its members.

A. Failure to submit a complete application.
	The application did not include the calculations 
for Total Resource Effectiveness, (TRE), which are 
required under LAC 33:III:517.D.9.  These 
calculations are a requirement of the HON 
(hazardous organic NESHAP) and reference to 
these calculations and the results of the calculations 
was made throughout the permit application.  
However, the calculations were not included in the 
permit application.
	We are requesting that the permit application be 
modified to include the TRE (Total Resource 
Effectiveness) calculations and that a new 30 day 
public comment period begin at that time.  If the 
permit application is not modified to include these 
calculations, or if a new public comment period is 
not started after the application is modified we 
request that the permit be denied for failure to 
comply with LAC 33:III:517.D.9.
	The TRE calculations are required under LAC 
33:III:517.D.9 and are an important part of this 
permit and this permit application. We object to the 
issuance of this permit unless and until the public has 
had at least 30 days (after notice) to comment on a 
complete permit application and a record that 
contains all calculations (including without limitation 
the TRE calculations) required under LAC 
33:III:517.D.9.

B. Failure to comply with the process vent 
provisions of the HON.
	The proposed permit does not correctly apply 
the process vent provisions of the HON in 40 CFR 
63.115. This section requires that the TRE 
calculations be based on the HON subpart G Section 
63.115(d)(3), which states: "(iii) The owner or 
operator of a halogenated vent stream shall calculate 
the TRE (Total Resource Effectiveness) index value 
based on the use of a thermal incinerator with 0 
percent heat recovery, and a scrubber."
	The DuPont Dow proposed permit is allowing 
process vents which calculate the TRE based on the 
use of "Halogenated Thermal Incinerator and 
Scrubber" and not  "thermal incinerator with 0 
percent heat recovery", as required in 40 CFR 
63.115.  We insist that the 40 CFR 63.115 be 
followed and that the TRE for process vents be 
calculated based on "thermal incinerator with 0 
percent heat recovery".  We further request that the 
current proposed permit be revoked and that a new 
permit be issued based on the correct use of the 
"thermal incinerator with 0 percent heat recovery" 
category in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.115.
	The current proposed permit is based on the use 
of the "Halogenated Thermal Incinerator and 
Scrubber" category in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.115.  
This proposed permit fails to meet the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in three ways.

1.  The MACT (Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology) standard applied to this proposed 
permit was not met.  The MACT standard is to meet 
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.115, which requires 
that the TRE for process vents be calculated based 
on the use of a "thermal incinerator with 0 percent 
heat recovery".  This proposed permit allows the use 
of TRE calculated for "Halogenated Thermal 
Incinerator and Scrubber" and therefore does not 
meet the MACT requirements of the CAA.
	Allowing the use of TRE calculations for the 
category "Halogenated Thermal Incinerator and 
Scrubber" allows process vents that are over two 
and a half times larger than the process vents will be 
when the correct category "thermal incinerator with 
0 percent heat recovery" is used.  This becomes a 
critical issue when the control standard is specifically 
written to control chlorinated (halogenated) organic 
chemical air emissions.  All chlorinated organic 
chemical air emissions are Class 2 toxic air 
pollutants; known, probable or suspected 
carcinogens; and known, probable or suspected 
reproductive toxins.  This compares to the broader 
class of organic chemical air emissions, a majority of 
which are Class 3 toxic air pollutants and are not 
classified as carcinogens or reproductive toxins.  
Due to the potential adverse health effects 
associated with chlorinated air emissions the most 
conservative control technology must be used.

2.  When there is any doubt or confusion about 
which control category in 40 CFR 63.115 should be 
used, the confusion must be resolved by using the 
most conservative control technology.  Since this 
proposed permit involves halogenated emissions, the 
more conservative "thermal incinerator with 0 
percent heat recovery" must be used.  In addition, 
40 CFR 63.115 clearly states that for this case the 
category "thermal incinerator with 0 percent heat 
recovery" must be used.

3.  Failure to require the most stringent and widely 
used control technology will fail to meet the MACT 
requirements and the definition of MACT in the 
CAA Section 112.d.3.A and also in LAC 33:III 
Chapter 51.  For existing sources this requires 
control technology that shall not be less stringent, 
and may be more stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of the existing sources.  Since the majority 
of HON facilities that emit halogenated air emissions 
use an incinerator as the control device, an 
incinerator or its equivalent is the control standard. 
	Failure to apply the correct control technology 
in 40 CFR 63.115 will be a failure to meet the 
requirements of the CAA Section 112.d.3.A and 
LAC 33:III Chapter 51.  Additionally, since 
incinerators are the most conservative and best 
control technology available for chlorinated air 
emissions, and since incinerators are used by a 
majority of HON facilities that emit halogenated air 
emissions, failure to apply the most conservative 
control technology specified in 40 CFR 63.115 will 
also be a failure to meet the requirements of the 
CAA Section 112.d.3.A and LAC 33:III Chapter 51.
	
	

Sincerely,


Marylee Orr
Executive Director

cc:	Mr. Dale Givens	fax: 225-765-0746
	Mr. Gregg Cooke	fax: 214-665-6648
	Mr. Carl Edlund	fax: 214-665-7263