Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4381376/
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 07:00:42
Document Index: 35992763

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 70', 'art 70', 'art 70', 'art 70', 'art 70', 'art 70']

Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Challenging a Title V Operation Permit with the Part 70(8) Petition Process: An Aluminum Foundry Case Study Steven Klafka, PE, - ppt download
Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Challenging a Title V Operation Permit with the Part 70(8) Petition Process: An Aluminum Foundry Case Study Steven Klafka, PE,
Published byBranden Tyler
Presentation on theme: "Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Challenging a Title V Operation Permit with the Part 70(8) Petition Process: An Aluminum Foundry Case Study Steven Klafka, PE,"— Presentation transcript:
Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Challenging a Title V Operation Permit with the Part 70(8) Petition Process: An Aluminum Foundry Case Study Steven Klafka, PE, DEE Wingra Engineering, S.C. A&WMA Conference 2002 2
Wingra Engineering, S.C.2 Participation in Air Permit Process Participate during public comment period. Testify at public hearing. Challenge permit under 40 CFR Part 70(8). 3
Wingra Engineering, S.C.3 Title V Petition Case Study Permit issued to Madison-Kipp Corporation (MKC) in Madison, Wisconsin. Regulatory agency is the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Petition filed by neighborhood residents. Requested USEPA reject permit due to lack of WDNR response to air quality problems. 4
Wingra Engineering, S.C.4 Background MKC operated at site for over 100 years. Aluminum and Zinc foundry and die caster. New manufacturing expansion in the 1990’s. Increase in noise and discharges of odors, die casting oils, and hydrogen chlorine. Operations allowed by local M-1 industrial zoning, but required construction and operation air quality permits from WDNR. 5
Wingra Engineering, S.C.5 Background Cont’d MKC growth in 1990’s followed by increased resident complaints to WDNR and City of Madison. In 1999 WDNR odor survey, residents identified MKC as cause of numerous health problems. Residents reported the need to stay indoors or to limit outdoor activities due to the MKC emissions. 6
Wingra Engineering, S.C.6 EPA Toxics Release Inventory 7
Wingra Engineering, S.C.7 Background Cont’d Foundry located in densely populated neighborhood. Homes and yards adjacent to foundry. Nearby Lowell Elementary School participates in federal Title I program due to low income population greater than 40%. Area of urban renewal with influx of educated, politically active residents. 8
Wingra Engineering, S.C.8 MKC Location in Neighborhood 9
Wingra Engineering, S.C.9 Aerial Photograph of MKC 10
Wingra Engineering, S.C.10 Expansion Controversy 11
Wingra Engineering, S.C.11 Educating the Neighborhood 12
Wingra Engineering, S.C.12 Title V Permit History DateAction 1993Title V permit application submitted. 1995Application administratively complete. 1999Last application amendment st draft Title V permit issued by WDNR. 1999Public hearing. 2000Response to public comments released by WDNR. 2001Deadline for EPA comments on 2 nd draft permit. 2001Submission of Title V petition. 2001Deadline for submission of Title V petition to EPA. 2001Issuance of final Title V permit. 13
Wingra Engineering, S.C.13 Hurdles to Reviewing Permit Complex facility, permit & analyses. Extensive avoidance of regulations. Concurrent construction permits. Modeling based on seven scenarios. Nearly eight years from original application until issuance of Title V operation permit. 14
Wingra Engineering, S.C.14 Objections to Title V Permit 1. Applicability of secondary aluminum MACT. 2. Inadequacy of air quality modeling. 3. Lack of public review of final permit. 4. Applicability of PSD regulations. 5. Discharges of dioxins and furans. 6. Lack of air pollution control equipment. 7. Inadequacy of emission estimates. 8. Inadequacy of compliance demonstration. 9. Compliance with environmental justice goals. 15
Wingra Engineering, S.C.15 Title V Petition Content Support for each objection. Video tape & transcript of 1999 hearing. Articles, flyers & resident petitions odor survey results. 2 nd draft permit issued by WDNR. WDNR technical support documents. WDNR response to public comments. USEPA letter on PSD circumvention. 16
Wingra Engineering, S.C.16 Approved Facility Emissions Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per hour) Particulate Matter (PM)22 Nitrogen Oxides (N0 x )71 Carbon Monoxide (CO)14 Chlorine (Cl)90 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)93 17
Wingra Engineering, S.C.17 Aluminum MACT Applicability MACT for secondary aluminum processing plants adopted March MACT requires control of PM, HCl & PCDD/F. Title V permit concludes MACT not applicable. Petition argues use of dirty scrap and chlorine fluxing requires MACT. 18
Wingra Engineering, S.C.18 Inadequate Modeling Analysis Air quality standard compliance based on older ISC3 dispersion model. Should use urban, not rural coefficients. Need for flag pole concentrations. Must address elevated terrain. Need to evaluate cavity impacts. 19
Wingra Engineering, S.C.19 Modeling Analysis Cont’d Incorporate fugitive releases from doors & windows. Evaluate obstructed roof vents. Consider downwash effect of nearby homes. Extend receptor grid beyond 500 meters. Evaluate objectionable odors. Determine compliance with PM 2.5 air quality standard. 20
Wingra Engineering, S.C.20 Public Review of Final Permit 1999:Public hearing on 1 st draft permit. 2000:Response to public comments 2000:Later approval of new furnace, chlorine injection, and diesel generator. 2001:2 nd draft permit submitted to EPA. No public review of 2 nd draft permit. EPA guidance specifically required WDNR to allow new comments on the draft operation permit incorporating recent projects. 21
Wingra Engineering, S.C.21 PSD Regulation Applicability PSD regs applicable to major sources. Requires BACT for new emissions. MKC threshold for PSD based on definition of “secondary aluminum processing plant”. If PSD applicable, recent projects would be subject to BACT requirements. 22
Wingra Engineering, S.C.22 Dioxins & Furans MACT background identifies aluminum furnaces as sources of PCDD/F. No WDNR estimate of PCDD/F or evaluation of compliance with rules. Compliance testing only addressed single isomer 2378-TCDD, not all 176 PCDD/F isomers regulated by MACT. 23
Wingra Engineering, S.C.23 Lack of APC Equipment Permit conditions established to avoid applicability of more restrictive requirements including APC. Discharges from aluminum furnaces, chlorine fluxing, die casting operations approved without control assuming compliance with air quality standards. Compliance based on faulty modeling. 24
Wingra Engineering, S.C.24 Inadequate Emission Estimates References identified other pollutants not considered in supporting analysis: As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se and PCDD/F. Health and odor complaints coincided with use of die lube oils. No evaluation of oil constituents. 25
Wingra Engineering, S.C.25 Inadequate Compliance Methods Avoidance of PSD and MACT dependent on compliance with permit conditions. Permit violations have immediate impact on adjacent residences. History of violations, 911 accidents, lack of management at MKC. Need for more testing, monitoring and record keeping to assure compliance. 26
Wingra Engineering, S.C.26 Address Environmental Justice Description of neighborhood. Description of other industries and county airport in area. EJ requires more monitoring. EJ requires risk reduction. EJ requires release preparedness. 27
Wingra Engineering, S.C.27 Recent Developments June City evaluated two years of complaints and WDNR modeling results. Found no excess symptoms and no justification for further study. MKC measurements of 2378-TCDD non-detectable. USEPA proposed ISC3 replacement with AERMOD capable of evaluating cavity pollutant concentrations. USEPA implementing air quality standards for PM 2.5 which are < PM 10 used to issue Title V permit. USEPA resolving MACT lawsuit for Aluminum die casters. March USEPA Region 5 estimates petition response within a few months. 28
Wingra Engineering, S.C.28 Skills for Petition Preparation Energy to weave through regulatory and paperwork maze. Involvement prior to permit issuance. Comply with petition requirements. Identification of specific issues. Provide support and documentation. Patience – no quick results. 29
Wingra Engineering, S.C.29 Further Information May 4, 2001 Title V Petition Title V Petition Database on Internet Neighborhood Association Web Site Download ppt "Wingra Engineering, S.C.1 Challenging a Title V Operation Permit with the Part 70(8) Petition Process: An Aluminum Foundry Case Study Steven Klafka, PE,"
FET Environmental Primer Air Regulations: Permitting Basics Steven Klafka, P.E. Wingra Engineering, S.C. Madison, Wisconsin
Tailoring Rule - Title V Scenarios July 20, 2010 Katherine N. Blue Principal Consultant, Climate Change Services trinityconsultants.com Troutman Sanders/Trinity.
Tribal Permitting Conference 2013 Steve Dunn, P.E., Construction Permit Team Leader; Bureau of Air Management (608) ;