HAP Rule 372 Guidance Permitting Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
September 17, 2003 Workshop WEBCAST Hank Naour ILLINOIS EPA MACT Standards and Section 112f Residual Risk.
Advertisements

The Wonderful World of HAP Regulations
METAL COIL SURFACE COATING MACT OVERVIEW 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May 2006.
METAL COIL SURFACE COATING MACT QUESTION & ANSWERS
IRON & STEEL FOUNDRY MACT QUESTION & ANSWERS
Review of NC Toxic Air Pollutant Rules (pursuant to Session Law ) North Carolina Division of Air Quality Stakeholder Meeting September 25, 2012.
Key Features of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Goal: The elimination of all discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States: § 101(a)(1).
AWMA Meeting October 15, 2013 Stack testing issues and questions Dennis Thielen.
1 Impact of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule 2012 Annual ARIPPA Tech Convention August 22, 2012 Presented by: John Slade, Senior Consultant, All4.
MSW LANDFILL MACT STANDARD DEVELOPMENT SWANA’s 22nd Annual Landfill Gas Symposium March 22-25, 1999 Michele Laur Emission Standards Division US Environmental.
Air Toxics Rule Changes (pursuant to Session Law ) North Carolina Division of Air Quality July 2013 Environmental Management Commission.
Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in the United.
Pennsylvania’s Permit Decision Guarantee Program National Association of Clean Air Agencies Spring Membership Meeting Atlanta, GA May 4-7, 2014.
New Federal Regulations for Internal Combustion Engines Doug Parce.
Overview of the Clean Air Act and the Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards Public Outreach.
April 15, 2015 Betty Gatano, P.E. Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919)
1 Year in Review: Clean Air Act Presented by: Tom Wood Stoel Rives LLP October 8, 2010 Things Are Getting Really Complicated.
NCMA Workshop March 24, 2015 Booker Pullen Supervisor, Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919) Permitting.
Best available control technology (BACT) requirements
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
1 Control Techniques Guidelines Joel Leon September 16, 2011.
Update on EPA Oil and Gas Activities Greg Green, Outreach and Information Division, OAQPS.
Actions to Reduce Mercury Air Emissions and Related Exposure Risks in the United States Ben Gibson Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards U.S.
The Impact of Greenhouse Gas Regulation on Energy Production: Legal Framework for Greenhouse Gases Standards for Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric Generating.
American Public Power Association Washington, DC April 27, 2010 Leslie Sue Ritts, RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC 1.
Air Toxics Rule Changes (pursuant to Session Law ) North Carolina Division of Air Quality Air Toxics Rule Changes Stakeholder Meeting March 20,
Air Quality 101 Kansas Air Quality Program overview.
Final Amendments to the Regional Haze Rule: BART Rule Making June 16, 2005.
1 IDEM Overview of March 14, 2008 Draft Antidegradation Rule Presented at the April 29, 2008 Antidegradation Stakeholder Meeting.
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
Blue Skies Delaware; Clean Air for Life NESHAPs Jim Snead October 8, 2008.
NC Toxic Air Pollutant Reports (pursuant to Session Law ) North Carolina Division of Air Quality Air Quality Committee Meeting January 9, 2013.
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.
BART Guideline Overview WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
Stationary and Area Source Committee Update OTC Committee Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, D.C. Hall of the States 1.
REGIONAL HAZE BART – Key Issues For Consideration Eric Massey, Arizona DEQ Lee Alter, WGA SSJF Meeting June 3, 2004 Denver, Colorado.
Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Presumptive MACT For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills July 1999 Emission Standards Division US Environmental Protection Agency.
LEGAL ASPECT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT (INTERNATIONAL) NURUL MAISYARAH BINTI SAMSUDIN NORAINI BINTI ABD RAHMAN NOR AINI OTHMAN NUR NAZNIN BINTI ISHAK.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training Other Aspects of PSD Title V Permitting.
1 Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule Kathy Kaufman EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards January 11,
Blue Skies Delaware; Clean Air for Life 10/8/08 Minor New Source Review Alberto Roybal.
Title V, Preliminary Completeness Review. What do I need to do?  I need to find out if the application contains the required information.  Initial Title.
Notebook Ref Summary of the Issue Part of a Tier II antidegradation review should incorporate the consideration of feasible alternatives, some of.
Air Quality Policy Division D P A Q 1 Regional Haze Update WESTAR September 17-19, 2007 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation Sarah Fuchs Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Clean Air Act SAFE 210. Purpose Protect public health and regulate air emissions Addresses both stationary and mobile sources.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Air Quality Standards and Nonattainment Updates Rule Development Workshop Chapter , F.A.C. October.
Update on Methane Regulations Affecting Landfills Pat Sullivan Senior Vice President SCS Engineers Nov. 10, 2015.
Summary of June 15, 2005 Revisions to RH BART and BART Guidelines.
NSR—Minor New Source Review Darrel Harmon U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
Proposed Rulemaking: Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO x and VOCs (25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129) Environmental Quality Board November.
New Ozone NAAQS Impacts: What Happens Next with a Lower O3 Standard? Nonattainment Designation and Industry’s Opportunity to Participate New Ozone NAAQS.
Climate: ANPR, SIPs and Section 821 WESTAR October 2, 2008.
New Source As defined in the CAA, construction of a new source, or modification of an existing source, that will produce a significant increase in emissions.
New Source Review (NSR) Program Basics
Clean Air Act Glossary.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Mike Abraczinskas
Clean Air Act (CAA) Purpose
EPA’s 2014 Draft RIA EPA’s 2104 Draft RIA continues to rely heavily on PM2.5 co-benefits:
Major New Source Review (NSR) Part 2
Boiler Sheltered Initiative
Kansas Air Quality Seminar March 5, 2008
NC Toxic Air Pollutant Reports (pursuant to Session Law )
Best Available Control Technology for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
Presentation transcript:

HAP Rule 372 Guidance Permitting Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department

HAP Rule 372 Talking Points Rule overview and objectives Applicability Exemptions HAPRACT AZMACT Risk Management Analysis (RMA) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 Overview & Objectives Mitigate toxic impact Science based similar to NESHAP Identifies source categories specific to Arizona Mirrors state rule implemented by ADEQ Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 Applicability Rule applies to new or modified sources of HAP (see Section 102) Minor sources of HAP subject to HAPRACT if they are listed in Table 1 (§ a) Major sources of HAP subject to AZMACT (§ b) Exemptions given in Section 103 Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 Exemptions Sources subject to a NESHAP under 40 CFR Part 61 and/or Part 63 (Section 100, §103.1) Sources that voluntarily accept NESHAP requirements (§103.2) Sources that demonstrate any risk to be below established standards by performing a RMA (Section 300, §306) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 HAPRACT Determination of HAPRACT must follow the sequence given in Section 300, §304.2 of the rule RACT definition in local Rule 100, § consistent with case- by-case approach in Rule 372 EPA has established RACT to be “the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility” (see EPA memo of 1976, Roger Strelow and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 AZMACT An emission standard that requires the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants… (definitions, §205 of the rule) §305.2 of the rule requires a list of sources to determine the most stringent emission limitation currently achieved in the U.S. Infeasible options are eliminated and the reasons documented (§305.2) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 AZMACT (con’t.) The remaining options are evaluated sequentially in descending order of removal efficiency (§ c) Each of the remaining options is evaluated considering economic, environmental, and energy impacts pursuant to § c & d Source proposes AZMACT in accordance with § e AZMACT cannot be less stringent than NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60 or NESHAP at 40 CFR Part 61 (§305.3) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 RMA Applicant may demonstrate by performing a Risk Management Analysis (RMA) that HAPRACT or AZMACT are not necessary (§ a) RMA must use total potential to emit in accordance with § c & d Applicant must conduct RMA for each pollutant emitted above the de minimis amounts (§ e & Table 2) Applicant may use any of the methods of §306.2 in performance of a RMA (tiers 1 - 4) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting our most vital natural resource - air

HAP Rule 372 Guidance Permitting Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department