Project Planning and Air Permit Issues
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
2 gostaram•500 visualizações
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.
![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Project Planning and Air Permit Issues
Semelhante a Project Planning and Air Permit Issues (20)
Mais de All4 Inc.
Mais de All4 Inc. (20)
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.
- 26. Questions? [email_address] All4 Inc. 2393 Kimberton Road P.O. Box 299 Kimberton, PA 19442 610.933.5246 x14 www.all4inc.com
Notas do Editor
- JFS tune this up as you see fit.
- 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.
- Emphasize when PA is needed.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- -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.
- -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).
- -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.
- 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.
- JFS
- >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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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…