Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Forest County Potawatomi Natalene Cummings Air Quality Program Manager.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Forest County Potawatomi Natalene Cummings Air Quality Program Manager."— Presentation transcript:

1 Forest County Potawatomi Natalene Cummings Air Quality Program Manager

2 2 Locate state air pollution permits page and check regularly Get on notification lists – if the state has one Can comment as a citizen on behalf of tribe during comment period Obtain TAS for Section 505 (Title V permit notice) “Should” get notifications automatically within 50 miles WI issues NSR and Title V together Can comment as a sovereign during comment period Obtain Class I redesignation Can participate in negotiations between state and applicant during application phase

3 3

4 4 Look for application

5 5 As a Class I area manager Receive applications shortly after state does Submit comments during negotiations between state and applicant Can request Class I AQRV impact analysis Can dispute the permit through EPA

6 6 What is the size, distance and direction What is the Q/D value (from FLAG) for PSD pollutants? Was netting used? What are the projected emissions of pollutants of concern other than PSD pollutants, i.e. mercury Is it a Synthetic Minor?


8 8 Provides guidance on screening applications – specifically the Q/D factor Provides unified direction on how to evaluate impacts on AQRVs - from ozone and deposition and to visibility

9 9 Add together quantity of proposed CONTROLLED emissions for PM 10, SO 2, NO x and H 2 SO 4 (sulfuric acid mist) in tons per year, based on 24-hour maximum allowable emissions Divide by the distance in kilometers if Q/D = <10, impacts negligible if Q/D = >10, Class I AQRV analysis may be requested Note: if less than 50km, Class I AQRV analysis is conducted

10 10 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan A new iron pelletizing facility implementing a different technology Iron Nugget facility a new project/facility to Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.’s existing Tilden and Empire Mine operation

11 11 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan

12 12 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan PollutantEmissions (tons/year) NOx1,143.6 PM10128.31 SO2263.1 SAM103.0 TOTAL Q1,638.01 FCPCSeney NWR Rainbow Lakes USFS 120 km104 km281 km 13.6515.755.8 FCPC Q/D = 1638.01 tpy/120 km = 13.65 = impacts possible, worth looking at = conduct an Class IAQRV impact analysis * Sulfuric Acid Mist (SO 2 H 4 )


14 14 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan PollutantEmissions (tpy) After netting NOx1,148.8-247.6 (=0) PM10166.02.3 SO2263.336.3 SAM*102.676.8 TOTAL Q1,680.7115.4 FCPCSeney NWR Rainbow Lakes USFS 120 km104 km281 km 0.961.100.41 FCPC Q/D = 115.4/120 = 0.91 = Netting resulted in “netting out” of PSD for all but SAM and fluoride no Class I analysis may affect BACT determinations * Sulfuric Acid Mist (SO 2 H 4 )

15 15 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan Class I FLMs concerned about emissions used to net out Stopped using unit at Empire Line 1 in February, 2003 Dismantled unit in January, 2005 Permit application drafted in January, 2009 Contemporaneous period = 5 years February, 2003 to January 2009 = 6 years MIN and MDEQ argued that while the Empire Line 1 unit was idle since 2003 Could have been started up immediately Emissions were included in annual emissions summaries Made inoperable in 2005 when grating was removed and recycled; Therefore, it fell within the contemporaneous period

16 16 Ex: Michigan Iron Nugget Facility, Palmer, Michigan Region 5 EPA weighed in commenting that the “intent” of the facility of whether or not to resume operations doesn’t figure in; and that the actual emissions decrease or increase in question must fall within the contemporaneous period to be eligible for netting


18 18 Q/D covers PSD pollutants NOx, SO 2, PM 10 and SO 2 H 4 (SAM) Other pollutants not covered, such as HAPs Mercury (Hg) a concern for FCPC – forested landscape dotted with many glacial lakes and streams

19 19 FCPC fish tissue samples in 2010 reveal FCPC median Hg levels in fish 0.25 ppm FCPC 75 th percentile levels 0.4 ppm Hg threshold for Class I areas near FCPC 0.05 ppm Risk threshold for protecting fish-eating wildlife 0.2-0.3 ppm


21 21 1.) Within Section 3.3.5 of the application narrative (page 28) the applicant purposes to use a silt loading factor for paved roadways of 0.6 grams per square meter. Based on knowledge developed over many years that silt loading factor is on the very low end of the possible values. Practice has demonstrated a more reliable factor of 3 g/m2 as a default value. If WDNR intends to allow the use of the 0.6 g/m2, a permit condition requiring a quarterly monitoring of this emission rate using USEPA methods should be incorporated within the permit. As the dispersion modeling demonstration resulted in a prediction of 99% of the PM 2.5 NAAQS, this volume source feature could be very significant. 2.) Section (page 37) the applicant proposes work practices and emission standards which represent the case-by-case MACT, yet these standards do not comply with the recently proposed biomass boiler MACT standard for mercury.

22 22 3.) Appendix A Section 4.5 (P.38) second paragraph states that SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) can have significant environmental impact related to on-site handling and storage of ammonia, but no examples or quantification of effects of such impacts is provided. What are these potential impacts and how significant are they? Would a risk management plan be required? 4.) Appendix A Section 7.5.3. The conclusion that sorbent injection technology could be utilized at an average cost effectiveness of $9,950 per ton of SO2 removed and that cost is not economically feasible. No explanation or quantification of why that cost is not economically feasible is provided. In order to evaluate this conclusion that information is necessary. 5.) Section 7.3.1 establishes mercury content basis for bark as “oven dried”. As such, the permit should contain a limitation requiring all bark introduced to be “oven dried”.

23 23 6.) Section is illogical. The fact that carbon injection has not been demonstrated on similar biomass-fueled boilers does not lead to a logical conclusion that the level of mercury emissions with activated carbon injection will be the same as biomass alone. What would the emissions be with the carbon injections? 7.) Section 7.4.4 conclusion based on an illogical argument. The supposition that sorbent injection would adversely impact use of ash as soil amendment or fertilizer is unsupported with any demonstration. Source testing should be required for sulfur dioxide to ensure compliance with the elective limit of 0.66 pounds per hour. Without such testing there is no assurance this limit is being achieved. The statement that the unit is guaranteed not to exceed the 0.82 pounds per hour limit within the permit is hollow. The guarantee is worthless without the demonstration of the emission rate. The diesel-electric generator should be required to be source tested for particulate matter and PM 10.

24 24 Are the emission rates/factors correct or different? Permit should require emissions testing after construction to validate emission rate/factor used in application Are the emissions standards current (recent updates)? If an emission rate used in the permit is less than the PTE, is that limit included in the permit? Are there limitations in the permit that are based on those reduced emission rates provided in the application? Is emissions testing included in the permit to verify that the facility is operating at the reduced emission rate provided in the application?

25 25 Are the statements made about certain BACT options, or other “conclusions” supported with documentation? Are the sources of pollutant emissions estimates included as a limit within the permit? (ex, used oven dried bark emission estimates) Were surrogate emissions used for a unit Were emissions limits included in the permit that reflect the units “guaranteed” emission limits?

26 26 ActualMaximum Theoretical Potential to EmitMaximum Allowable Emissions from existing units 24/7 full tilt operationWith proposed controls in place Limits based on state codes, federal regs - NSPS, NESHAP, etc.044.089 Terminology differs Example: Wisconsin Reminder: PSD limits are 100/250, Title V limits are 100 tpy There may be other types of permits specific to a state, ex: registration permits. It’s complicated. Very, very complicated. Baby steps. One permit at a time. Breathe.

27 27 Ask the state for a copy of the application before the draft permit is issued Don’t be shy. Pick up the phone and call the state permit writer/engineer Check with the FLM at your nearest Class I area Call your regional EPA office permit staff Call other Tribal air staff Call Laura!

Download ppt "Forest County Potawatomi Natalene Cummings Air Quality Program Manager."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google