Project Planning and Air Permit Issues
Download as PPT, PDF2 likes523 views
This document summarizes a presentation given to ARIPPA on project planning and air permit issues. It discusses typical air permit requirements for construction and operating permits in Pennsylvania. It also provides an overview of current issues like new EPA interpretations of PSD/NNSR rules, new NAAQS standards, greenhouse gas reporting rules, and challenges with understaffed state permitting agencies. The presentation stresses developing a thorough air permit strategy from the start of a project to facilitate the permitting process.
![Questions? [email_address] All4 Inc. 2393 Kimberton Road P.O. Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442 610.933.5246 x14 www.all4inc.com](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/july2010presentation-120206122859-phpapp01/85/Project-Planning-and-Air-Permit-Issues-26-320.jpg)
Project Planning and Air Permit Issues
- 1. Project Planning and Air Permit Issues ARIPPA Monthly Meeting July 27, 2010 John Egan & John Slade All4 Inc.
- 2. Agenda Introduction Typical Projects Air Permit Requirements Current Air Happenings Project Planning & New Source Review Questions
- 3. Introduction About ALL4: Environmental consulting firm specializing in air quality – permitting, modeling, monitoring, climate change, etc. Began operation in 2002 Located in Kimberton, PA Currently 30 employees Pride ourselves on: Long-term client relationships Commitment to employees
- 4. Introduction – cont’d About John Egan: Principal and partner in ALL4 Began career w/DEP in 1974 in NCRO Left DEP as Air Permit Chief in SERO in 1987 Former consultant with: Roy F. Weston (1987 – 1998) EarthRes Group (1998 – 2002)
- 5. Introduction – cont’d About John Slade: Senior Consultant with ALL4 since 2007 Began career w/DEP in 1971 in NCRO Served as NCRO Compliance Chief until 1986 From 1986 to 1994 worked as a Section Chief in Air Quality Central Office Served as Division of Air Permits Chief in DEP headquarters from 1994 through 2007
- 6. Typical Projects Improve efficiency Increase capacity Reduce downtime Use alternate fuels Replace equipment Add emission controls Others???
- 7. Air Permit Requirements 2 basic types of air permits: Construction permits Operating permits New projects: Need to consider air permitting Emphasis is typically on construction permits
- 8. Air Permit Requirements – cont’d Pennsylvania: Construction permit = Plan Approval Plan Approval required to: Construct new source Modify or reactivate existing source Install air cleaning device
- 9. Air Permit Requirements – cont’d Federal and state major New Source Review (NSR) air permits required for major sources and major modifications: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for areas in attainment with NAAQS Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) for NAAQS non-attainment areas
- 10. Current Air Happenings What’s hot? PSD/NNSR – new interpretations/guidance NAAQS – new standards for NO 2 , SO 2 , PM 2.5 , Ozone GHG – reporting rule and PSD tailoring rule CATR – new federal rule to replace CAIR Utility Boiler MACT Agency staffing issues All can impact project planning…
- 11. PSD/NNSR NSR Reform Rule – December 2002: Changed applicability test for existing units – actual to projected actual vs. actual to potential Demand growth exclusion for emissions the source could have accommodated Fugitive emissions and project aggregation rules both stayed Equipment Replacement Provision stayed indefinitely Project netting and debottlenecking rules proposed/dropped
- 12. New NAAQS PM 2.5 2006 standards: 35 ug/m 3 24-hr avg. 15 ug/m 3 annual avg. New non-attainment areas New NSR permitting requirements Need to consider precursors – NO X , SO 2 New test methods - need to include condensables
- 13. New NAAQS NO 2 New 1-hr standard – 100 ppb Very low standard Will impact project planning & cost Modeling may be required regardless of new projects New non-attainment areas
- 14. New NAAQS SO 2 New 1-hr standard – 75 ppb New non-attainment areas Very low standard No grandfathering Will impact project planning & cost Modeling will be required regardless of new projects
- 15. New NAAQS Ozone Proposed new 8-hr standard – 0.060 to 0.070 ppm Due to be promulgated – 8/31/10 Precursors NO X and VOC New non-attainment areas Will impact project planning & cost
- 16. Climate Change New GHG reporting rule in place Proposed PSD/Title V tailoring rule Step1 - Jan. through Jun. 2011 Projects subject to PSD for another pollutant w/GHG ≥ 75,000 tpy CO 2 e require BACT Sources already subject to Title V Step 2 – July 2011 through June 2013 New sources ≥ 100,000 tpy and modifications ≥ 75,000 tpy subject to PSD Sources ≥ 100,000 tpy CO 2 e subject to Title V
- 17. Clean Air Transport Rule CATR draft proposal issued July 6, 2010 Intended to replace CAIR 31 states and D.C. subject to rule Regulates SO 2 and NO X from EGUs Comments due 60 days after publication in F.R.
- 18. Utility Boiler MACT Coal and oil fired EGUs Considerable legal action ICR & testing via CAA 114 request – 2010 Use test data to develop MACT Floor Consent Decree Proposed MACT – March 16, 2011 Promulgated MACT – November 16, 2011
- 19. Agency Staffing State air permit staffs are lean Much institutional knowledge loss in last few years Rules are overly complicated and reviewers are not experienced U.S. EPA is weighing in/second guessing on many permit reviews Help as much as you can…
- 20. Project Planning & NSR Understand/define your project: New equipment Modified equipment Affected equipment U.S. EPA focus on production/throughput
- 21. Project Planning & NSR – cont’d Important questions to consider: New fuels/raw materials? Process or operational change? Will emission rates change? Is my emission data accurate? Are we being too logical?
- 22. Project Planning & NSR – cont’d How to account for emissions changes: Have to develop baseline emission rate data for project For new units must use potential to emit For modified/affected units can use future projected actual emissions Consider demand growth exclusion (carefully) Remember short-term and long-term
- 23. PSD vs. NNSR What’s the difference? Major source applicability thresholds Major modification applicability thresholds Varying applicability determination procedures (e.g., aggregation, netting) Control technology requirements (i.e., BACT vs. LAER) Non-attainment offset requirements Both are pre-construction permit programs
- 24. Permit Strategies Key steps for project planning: Developing an air permit strategy is a smart way to do business Air requirements need to be part of project planning from inception Strategy will impact project design, cost, and schedule More effort may be expended on strategy than on actual permitting
- 25. Final Thoughts Consider air impacts from the beginning of the project planning process Have a solid strategy ready when you approach the agency Consider agency advice carefully Build time for air permitting into schedule Plan for emission reductions Don’t get hung up on logic…
- 26. Questions? [email_address] All4 Inc. 2393 Kimberton Road P.O. Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442 610.933.5246 x14 www.all4inc.com
Editor's Notes
- #6: JFS tune this up as you see fit.
- #8: Any kind of project around any of the items from the previous slide (go back), need to consider if a construction permit is required. There are provisions for deminimus emissions increases, permit flexibility/off-permit changes in the OP programs and some projects may fit. More often than not construct permit or exemption is needed.
- #9: Emphasize when PA is needed.
- #10: Revisit for everyone – before we talk about project planning we’re going over some current hot EPA Air topics and the new NAAQS are near the top of the list. New NAAQS mean new non-attainment areas and projects that might previously have triggered PSD may in the future trigger NNSR. Big differences – a very big deal.
- #12: Question for JFS – were these units EGUs already subject to A to PA? I’m sure this is not news to anyone in this room. EPA under this Administration has completed a 180 turn and many of the NSR reform based provisions intended to help the regulated community are dead. Worse than that, in place now is a strategy to reduce emissions across the board. Their belief appears to be that the costs to do this far outweigh the cost savings/health benefits that will result. Whether you agree or not seems to be immaterial. So as you plan projects, this concept of building emissions reductions into the project needs to be your mindset.
- #13: Nonattainment area permitting requirements are unique – modeling requirements for purchasing offsets outside of your nonattainment area (often a single county). Makes it difficult to purchase credits from far away, and adds time/complexity to the permitting process. Other permitting requirements in nonattainment areas that are unique such as LAER for SO2. In attainment areas, PSD NAAQS modeling will be difficult since background concentrations are very close to the full NAAQS level (leaves very little room for modeling). OTM28 will soon be the promulgated test method for condensable PM. Supposed to eliminate the high bias and variability associated with the current Method 202.
- #14: -1-Hour NAAQS levels are very stringent – short-term standards result in having to account for “worst-case” dispersion conditions (worst case meteorological/downwash conditions and short-term emission rates). -PSD trigger projects will require modeling to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS levels, potentially on a facility wide basis. Most electric generating facilities will have difficulty modeling compliance using AERMOD. -Refining information about emission rates, exhaust parameters, and evaluating stack heights and emission limits will be critical. -Atmospheric chemistry considerations will be critical (i.e., how much Nox that is emitted is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere). -Modeling may be required for all major after U.S. EPA determines the appropriate atmospheric conversion rates on an hourly basis. The required modeling would be used in combination with monitoring data to define new nonattainment areas.
- #15: -See notes for NOx, except atmospheric chemistry considerations are eliminated. -Modeling will be required for all major facilities, with the modeling data used to establish new nonattainment boundaries. It is critical to understand how facilities compare to the NAAQS well in advance of a state or U.S. EPA request for modeling data. Meteorological data that is representative will be needed for the evaluation, and it can be a time consuming process to obtain representative data nearby (or collected, which would be one year).
- #16: -Not much to add here, really shouldn’t change much from a practical permitting perspective in PA. We need to get more familiar with the details on the NAAQS rule regardless of this presentation.
- #17: Find out impact of reporting rule on ARIPPA units. Mention coalition petition to EPA to reconsider tailoring rule based on CAA and position that PSD can only be triggered by pollutants w/NAAQS.
- #18: JFS
- #19: >1300 sources in 2006 meeting 112(a)(8) EGU definition ICR will cost over $75M; > select 500 sources required to test; all to submit info on units Legal Action: (see handout I’ll drop off – couple of slides with legal background) Testing due on staggered schedule; last due in end of summer. Test for: -acid gas HAPs (ex: HCL, HF, HCN) -Mercury and non-mercury metallic HAPS (ex: As, An, Se, Pb, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Mn, Ni) -Dioxins/Furans -non-dioxin/furan organic HAPs Looks like a few members may have had to test (Piney Creek, AES Beaver Valley, etc). probably a few others that I can’t definitively identify. Submit via test data via EPA’s ERT program (with some Utility MACT specific requirements) Per consent decree (dated 4. 2010): Proposed MACT – due by March 16, 2011; Promulgated MACT – November 16, 2011; 36 months/compliance deadline of November 2014
- #20: Try to do their work for them, but do it in a tactful way that makes them feel smart and look good. We’re going to get into the planning next – having a good plan that is supportable in the rules makes it easier and is the first important step.
- #21: Make sure you consider everything – roads, stockpiles, cooling towers…We talked about PM2.5 – some of these types of emissions units may not have been included or properly accounted for historically. Fix that and they may be sources for potential reductions you might need for future projects.
- #23: Demand growth – were there peak periods in the baseline years that I can annualize that are clearly unrelated to my project. Based on this should I consider a different baseline? Short-term/long-term – for applicability NSPS short, NSR long. Be careful how you identify emissions data and what ends up in your permit.
- #24: Remember – with the new NAAQS we talked about area attainment status may be changing. There are fundamental differences between PSD and NNSR that you need to be aware of.
- #25: Probably preaching to the choir here – but we still have requests from new clients to give them a proposal to prepare a permit application for a complicated project with no indication that planning or strategy were considered. If a project requires an NSR applicability assessment than developing an air permitting strategy should never be overlooked. Usually our proposals for these projects end up in 2 phases.
- #26: Remember a solid/well-founded strategy helps the agency as well as it helps you. But be careful with what they tell you. Just because you like what you hear doesn’t mean it is correct or necessarily in your company’s best interest. My favorite story is the CT facility that was told they didn’t need a permit…