GHG BACT Developments Justin Fickas Clay Raasch. Overview ˃ Since January 2011, Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have been evaluated under Prevention of Significant.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
Advertisements

GHG BACT Analysis Deanna L. Duram, P.E., C.M. August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association Southern Section Meeting trinityconsultants.com.
GHG Applicability Criteria. Introduction to PSD GHG Applicability As stated earlier, Tailoring Rule does not change basic applicability process Incorporation.
Update on CAAAC Workgroup, EPA Guidance, and Possible Future EPA GHG Regulations.
Update: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Association of California Airports September 15, 2010 Phil DeVita.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
1 Katy R. Forney Energy Sector Technical Authority Air Permits Section EPA Region 4 PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 14 th Annual Power Generation.
Michael Hopkins Assistant Chief, Permitting Ohio EPA Update on GHG Permitting in Region V.
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #2 May 28, 2008 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
Using a Sector Approach to Address Energy and Climate Challenges Symposium on Innovating for Sustainable Results January 9, 2008.
Combined Heat and Power and Air Quality - Guidance for Local Authorities Ed Dearnley Policy Officer.
Best available control technology (BACT) requirements
Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Indiana Energy Association September 11, 2014 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training GHG BACT Determinations - Principles and Examples.
Katrina Pielli U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CHP Partnership
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO 2 and SO 2 – New Modeling Challenges August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association – Southern Section.
NACAA Permitting Workshop, Chicago June 14, 2011 Raj Rao, NSR Group Leader OAQPS, EPA GHG Permitting – Regulatory Update.
Energy & Materials Flow & Cost Tracker (EMFACT) Terri Goldberg, NEWMOA.
Air Emission Benefits of CHP Air Innovations Conference August 10, 2004 Joel Bluestein Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Prepared under contract.
The world’s leading sustainability consultancy Generic Front Cover What’s this layout for? This is the generic slide front cover, but you can also make.
1 PSD - Case #1 Case #1: –A simple cycle natural gas power plant with PTE NOx of 300 tpy and GHGs of 150,000 tpy CO2e receives a PSD permit addressing.
Russell City Energy Center Voluntary GHG BACT Determination Bay Area Air Quality Management District June 14, 2011 Brian Lusher Senior Air Quality Engineer.
American Public Power Association Washington, DC April 27, 2010 Leslie Sue Ritts, RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC 1.
Freeport Generating Project Project Description Modernization projects at Power Plant #2 Developers – Freeport Electric and Selected Development Company.
Opting for “Long Term Operations” Technical, economic and regulatory considerations MARC Conference June 8, 2010 Sean Bushart, EPRI Sr. Program Manager.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC SO 2 Data Requirements Rule – A Proactive Compliance Approach Mark Wenclawiak, CCM |
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training Region 4 – Atlanta, GA Dec , 2010.
Bill Harnett March 30, 2010 WESTAR Spring Meeting.
Flexible Air Permitting Innovation Done Right State-EPA Innovations Symposium Denver, CO January 24, 2006.
Industrial Generation Performance Targets/Goals: » A set of starter methods that are characterized » A grid showing applicability, cost, uncertainty »
John A. Paul RAPCA. Background  Supreme Court Decision  Endangerment Finding  Johnson Memorandum  Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Rule  Tailoring.
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
Kimberton, PA | Kennesaw, GA | Strategic Air Planning: Is the Time for a PAL Here? Mark Wenclawiak, CCM|
Michigan Air Quality Division Greenhouse Gas BACT Analysis for Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc. Mary Ann Dolehanty Permit Section Chief Air Quality.
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
1. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) – Naturally occurring and man- made. 5,505.2 mmts emitted in 2009, GWP = 1 Methane (CH 4 ) - Naturally occurring and man-made.
TIGGER Program Public Webinar April 8, 2009 The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
GHG BACT Analysis Case Study Russell City Energy Center May 2010 Donald Neal Vice President, EHS.
Stationary and Area Source Committee Update OTC Committee Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, D.C. Hall of the States 1.
1 EPA’s Climate Change Strategy Robert J. Meyers Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation December 3, 2007.
Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Overview of the NSF 375 Draft Sustainability for the Water Treatment and Distribution Industry October 30, 2012.
Weathering the Change Action Plan 2 ACT Climate Change Council 8 November 2011.
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group April 30, 2008 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training Other Aspects of PSD Title V Permitting.
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
Title V Operating Permits: A Compliance and Enforcement Tool Candace Carraway US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training PSD Applicability Example Landfill Applicability Examples John Calcagni, EPA Region 4.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
1 WRAP Oil & Gas Phase II Work Plan: 2002 and 2018 Area Source Inventory Improvements and Area Source Controls Evaluation WRAP Stationary Sources Forum.
1 Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule Kathy Kaufman EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards January 11,
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation Sarah Fuchs Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Greenhouse Gas Permitting Sean O’Brien Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Advanced Air Permitting Seminar 2015.
Resource Management Planning Air Quality Brock LeBaron Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality
Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard For New Power Plants Presented by Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office of Air and Radiation.
Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR) Program Raj Rao US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ,
Perspective on Contingency Mitigation Options Presented by John Annicchiarico, Senior Engineer August 17, 2015.
MPCA Citizens’ Board Meeting: United States Steel Corporation-Keetac Air Emissions Permit Owen Seltz Industrial Division September 13, 2011.
Climate: ANPR, SIPs and Section 821 WESTAR October 2, 2008.
Fort Stanwix National Monument Energy Audit Contract
Clean Air Act Litigation Update State Air Director Meeting May 2015
Flexible Air Permitting
Clean Air Act Glossary.
NSPS Rulemakings for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Industrial Assessment Center Database
Greenhouse Gas Permitting: One Year After the Tailoring Rule
GHG Permitting: Regulatory Update
Michigan Air Quality Division
Best Available Control Technology for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
Presentation transcript:

GHG BACT Developments Justin Fickas Clay Raasch

Overview ˃ Since January 2011, Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have been evaluated under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting ˃ The GHG BACT process can prove challenging  Learning curve for both permitting authorities and industry ˃ What are the current trends regarding GHG BACT?

Phase II Report on BACT for GHGs ˃ Work Group Phase II report - dated August 5, 2010 (made public October 5, 2010) ˃ Report details considerations for conducting five step “top down” BACT analysis and how to incorporate efficiency into this process  Energy Efficient Processes and Technologies (EEPT)  Considerations for possible level of analysis ♦ Define part of facility subject to BACT review ♦ Describe equipment/operations for which BACT limit or work practice standard must be developed – Equipment-level, production-level, and facility-level ˃ Recommendations about how Innovative Control Technology (ICT) waiver can be used to encourage innovative technologies ˃ Many of these concepts incorporated into the EPA PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases (March 2011) 

Pre-Step 1: Defining the “Source” (1/2) ˃ Applicant defines the goals, objectives, purpose, or basic design for the proposed source/modification ˃ BACT process does not typically redefine these basic design elements ˃ When fuel efficiency or overall production process efficiency are considered as an available control option, defining the source/project is a critical step in the BACT process

Pre-Step 1: Defining the “Source” (2/2) ˃ March 15 th, 2012 Letter from EPA Region 5 to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) ˃ Letter was in reference to a draft PSD permit for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility  Permit involved installation of five new simple cycle combustion turbines  Operate on landfill gas with natural gas as a backup ˃ Draft permit comments stated that Step 1 of the GHG BACT did not consider either combined cycle turbines or combined heat and power (CHP) systems  Comments included request that GHG BACT be revised to consider these items in Step 1 of the BACT ˃ Redefining the source? ˃ WDNR Response – Final Permit Issued May 25, 2012  Combined Cycle not Appropriate for the Site (Footprint Issues)  Simple Cycle Similar to CHP

Step 1: Identify Available Controls (1/2) ˃ Resources are still limited for identifying available criteria pollutant control options applicable to GHGs  EPA’s RBLC database includes limited GHG information  Limited determinations of BACT by regulatory agencies for other similar sources  Air pollution control equipment vendors have not previously targeted GHG emissions reductions in the absence of any regulatory driver ˃ Assuming no add-on controls for GHGs will be available for most emission units, the only available control option will be “lower- emitting process” type GHG control options ˃ Primary GHG control options identified by the Work Group or EPA to date are fuel selection, energy efficiency, and CCS – “redefinition of the source possible” ˃ What controls are available for non-CO 2 GHGs?

Step 1: Identify Available Controls (2/2) ˃ Identify available EEPTs  Review unit’s energy performance with “benchmark” technology in use, mitigation options for specific industry sectors, and new available EEPTs potentially built outside of US  Sets of efficiency measures may be considered as available technology  For modifications to existing units, consider extent of modification, when identifying potential efficiency gains

Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Controls (1/2) ˃ Work Group and current guidance endorse the long standing EPA policy for Step 2 presented in the 1990 Draft NSR Manual ˃ Evaluations of technical feasibility should consider various aspects of the control option including:  Development stage (licensing and commercial sales vs. only R&D or pilot scale)  Scope of installations (i.e., how many similar sources have implemented this control option?) – feasible if operated on the same type of source  Physical or chemical properties of the emissions stream in comparison to emissions streams from similar sources successfully implementing the control option

Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Controls (2/2) ˃ No obvious technical limitations to fuel selection and energy efficiency for new sources ˃ Elimination of EEPTs may be based on concerns about reliability/operational characteristics of a technology ˃ GHG Specific Considerations – Availability of Technology  Lack of a commercial guarantee, by itself, is not sufficient grounds to determine technical infeasibility ˃ CCS may not be technically feasible in certain cases  Low purity CO 2 streams  Low CO 2 emission amounts

Step 3: Rank Remaining Control Options ˃ No significant consolidated database of GHG emissions performance of many industrial source types as there is for criteria pollutants ˃ Typical metrics for comparing available control options for criteria pollutants may not apply to certain GHG controls or may be very difficult to explicitly quantify ˃ For common fossil-fuel fired combustion units, like boilers and engines, GHG emissions performance on a mass pollutant emitted per energy output basis is the most likely basis for comparison (i.e., lb/MW steam or lb/hp-hr engine output) ˃ If energy efficiency is selected as the top control option, what level of energy consumption per unit output constitutes BACT for new and existing sources?

Step 4: “Top Down” Evaluation of Controls ˃ Start with highest ranked control option from Step 3 and evaluate potential for adverse energy, environmental, and economic impacts. If no adverse impacts, select BACT based on application of remaining control option. ˃ Energy Impacts: Consider energy consumption of GHG control options  Parasitic load from a potential GHG control option is too high based on limited emission reduction ˃ Environmental Impacts: Consider water, waste, air toxics, and criteria pollutant impacts from GHG controls options  Collateral criteria pollutant increases from GHG control options cannot jeopardize compliance with criteria pollutant BACT limits, NAAQS, or Increment ˃ Economic Impacts: Costs should be expressed on a CO 2 e basis, but no clear threshold has been established – CCS should be addressed

Step 5: Select BACT (1/2) ˃ Output-based limits (e.g., lb CO 2 /MWh, lb CO 2 /lb steam, lb CO 2 /hp-hr, etc.) are generally preferred over fuel- input based standards tied to fuel carbon content ˃ Analysis should confirm/deny suitability of EEPT or set of EEPTs selected as BACT ˃ BACT selection should take into effect changing loads or energy efficiency and compliance with the BACT limits ˃ Energy efficiency may vary with time due to degradation of equipment or because of operational issues

Step 5: Select BACT (2/2) ˃ No NAAQS for GHGs, so GHG BACT limits should be expressed on an annual average basis (i.e., 12- month calendar year or 365-day rolling average basis) ˃ If output-based GHG emissions increase during startup and shutdown, secondary lb/event BACT limits may be necessary ˃ Compliance demonstration methodologies for units with existing CEMs may be straightforward by adding GHG analyzers to existing system ˃ For emission units without CEMs, periodic stack testing may be required in conjunction with fuel usage or output tracking

Recent EPA GHG BACT Actions (1 of 2) ˃ Palmdale Hybrid Energy Center, Antelope Valley, CA (Region 9)  ale-final-permit pdf ale-final-permit pdf  Hybrid Power Project – CCT Component  12-month rolling average CO 2 e tpy limit sitewide  365-day rolling average source limit (lb CO 2 /MWh) net ˃ Lower Colorado River Authority – Ferguson, Horseshoe Bend, TX (Region 6)  r/ghg/lcra_final_permit.pdf r/ghg/lcra_final_permit.pdf  CCT Project  TPY limits (365-day rolling average) for CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O established for each combustion turbine  Ton CO 2 /MWh (net) limit for each combustion turbine

Recent EPA GHG BACT Actions (2 of 2) ˃ Pioneer Valley Energy Center (Region 1)  lley/PVECFinalPermitDecisionApril2012.pdf lley/PVECFinalPermitDecisionApril2012.pdf  Combine Cycle Combustion Turbine Project  BACT CO 2 e Limit – 895 lbs of CO 2 e/MWh grid 365 day rolling average  Initial source test for CO 2, and use emission factors from 40 CFR Part 98 for other GHGs  Permit Condition - If source test does not meet the design emissions limit, then the owner/operator shall remedy the CCT’s failure to meet the design emissions limit, and shall not combust any fuel in the CCT until the owner/operator demonstrates compliance with the emissions limit during a subsequent test

Questions? Justin Fickas 53 Perimeter Center East Suite 230 Atlanta, GA Office: (678) Cell: (678) Fax: (678)