PERMIT CONTENT. According to 40 CFR §70.6 (a) (1), each permit issued shall include “Emission limitations and standards, including those operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance.” Subparagraph i and ii go on to point out that duplicate requirements and overlapping requirements must be reconciled. Without prejudice, the DAQM permit evades many requirements and does not clearly include the “streamlining” demonstration prescribed by EPA. As an example of DAQM’s failure to require LAER, page 10 of the proposed permit lists various emission units and their Emission Control levels. The permit lists the PM-10 limits for the source as 51.37 tpy, thus making the source significant and subject to LAER per Section 15.14 of the SIP. Despite the requirement for LAER, all emission units A01 thru A09 are shown to have 0% emission control for PM-10. DAQM and its predecessor agencies have issued permits pursuant to APCR Section 12 since 1987. Section 12 contains regulations that are not federally enforceable, are not SIP approved, and are less stringent than approved SIP requirements. Consequently, all Part 70 permits that were issued by DAQM that are based on the Section 12 since 1987, are misleading to the public, unlawful, and do not comply with the requirement to “assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance.” The NEC objects to Condition C-8 of Part III. The requirement of LAER is not met. Rather than test for control efficiency, compliance is determined by at least 90% uptime and less than 10% bypass. No mention of control deficiency and LAER is in the permit. The NEC objects to Condition C-20 regarding a “design” of a boiler. The important criterion is not the design but the actual emissions. The NEC objects to Condition C-24 and there has been no mention of a “nonmetallic mineral processing” plant at the site. The NEC objects to Condition C32 regarding unpaved roads. Condition C-31 has established that LAER requires paved roads. Unpaved roads do not comply with LAER. The NEC objects to Condition D-3 regarding “low sulfur coke.” Low sulfur coke is undefined in the permit. The NEC objects to Condition D-10 of the permit regarding Granite Construction or Chemical Lime. This condition appears to demonstrate the sloppiness of DAQM management and their “quantity over quality” approach to permitting. We request that DAQM define exactly what Chemical Lime and/or Granite Construction have to do with this source. The NEC objects to Condition G-8 and G-9 as being useless and/or showing non-compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A requirements, thus requiring the missing compliance plan. The NEC objects to Condition H-1 and H-2 since they reference a SIP that has been rescinded by ▇▇▇▇▇ County. Additionally, it lists Section 0 in the definitions without mentioning the EPA approved Section 1 of the SIP. The NEC objects to Condition H-6 of the permit regarding local offset requirements. The source is subject to Federally enforceable emission offsets and not the local, sham, road paving credits that are listed. Additionally, the DAQM is attempting to extort the source to sign a blank check by not specifying the amount of credits that were due with the earlier modifications yet are now trying to deny the issuance of a permit unless the source will comply with bogus local credit requirements. The NEC objects to Condition H-8 which specifies compliance “in a timely manner” but fails to define what “in a timely manner” means in terms of the enforcement process. Compliance requirements are missing from the permit. The proposed permit allows non- quantifiable means of measurement (emission factors) in place of performance tests and CEMS that would quantify emissions.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Title v Operating Permit Comments
PERMIT CONTENT. According to 40 CFR §70.6 (a) (1), each permit issued shall include “Emission limitations and standards, including those operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance.” Subparagraph i and ii go on to point out that duplicate requirements and overlapping requirements must be reconciled. Without prejudice, the DAQM permit evades many requirements and does not clearly include the “streamlining” demonstration prescribed by EPA. As an example of DAQM’s failure to require LAERthe consistent application of BACT, page pages 10 thru 29 of the proposed permit lists various emission units and their the corresponding Emission Control levels. The permit lists the PM-10 limits for the source as 51.37 tpyalong with varying levels of emission control. Similar emission unit types have wide ranging emission control efficiencies. For example, thus making the source significant and subject some roads are paved. Yet, other, larger emitting roads are unpaved. The NEC requests that all haul roads are paved to LAER per Section 15.14 of the SIPcomply with BACT. Despite the requirement for LAERBACT, all many emission units A01 thru A09 are shown to have 0% emission control for PM-10several regulated pollutants. DAQM and its predecessor agencies have issued permits pursuant to APCR Section 12 since 1987. Section 12 contains regulations that are not federally enforceable, are not SIP approved, and are less stringent than approved SIP requirements. Consequently, all Part 70 permits that were issued by DAQM that are based on the Section 12 since 1987, are misleading to the public, unlawful, and do not comply with the requirement to “assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance.” The NEC objects to Condition C-8 every control requirement of Part IIIIII of the proposed permit. The requirement of LAER BACT is not met. The emissions were based upon artificially lowered emission factors that would have resulted in an artificially high cost effectiveness ratio when determining BACT. Rather than test for control efficiencythe accuracy of the emission factors relied upon, compliance there is determined no compliance. The NEC objects to Conditions regarding sulfur input in place of BACT. BACT should have included the listed sulfur input limits AND fuel sulfur limits. The intentional failure by at least 90% uptime and less than 10% bypassDAQM allows the source unlimited use of high sulfur waste fuels. No mention of control deficiency and LAER The NEC objects to Condition C-18 regarding unpaved roads. Condition C-17 has established that BACT is paved roads. Unpaved roads do not comply with BACT. The NEC demands that “Low sulfur” fuels (<1%) be specified in the permit. The NEC objects to Condition C-20 C-32 regarding a “design” opacity of a boiler. The important criterion is not 20% since the design but the actual emissionsapplicable Section 26 requires that emission units be designed for 0% opacity. The NEC objects to Condition C-24 and there has been no mention of a “nonmetallic mineral processing” plant at the site. The NEC objects to Condition C32 regarding unpaved roads. Condition C-31 has established that LAER requires paved roads. Unpaved roads do not comply with LAER. The NEC objects to Condition D-3 regarding “low sulfur coke.” Low sulfur coke is undefined in the permit. The NEC objects to Condition D-10 of the permit regarding Granite Construction or Chemical Lime. This condition appears to demonstrate the sloppiness of DAQM management and their “quantity over quality” approach to permitting. We request that DAQM define exactly what Chemical Lime and/or Granite Construction have to do with this source. The NEC objects to Condition G-8 and G-9 as being useless and/or showing non-compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A requirements, thus requiring the missing compliance plan. The NEC objects to Condition H-1 and H-2 since they reference a SIP that has been rescinded by ▇▇▇▇▇ County. Additionally, it lists Section 0 in the definitions without mentioning the EPA approved Section 1 of the SIP. The NEC objects to Condition H-6 of the permit regarding local offset requirements. The source is subject to Federally enforceable emission offsets and not the local, sham, road paving credits that are listed. Additionally, the DAQM is attempting to extort the source to sign a blank check by not specifying the amount of credits that were due with the earlier modifications yet are now trying to deny the issuance of a permit unless the source will comply with bogus local credit requirements. The NEC objects to Condition H-8 I-5 which specifies compliance “in a timely manner” but fails to define what “in a timely manner” means in terms of the enforcement processmeans. Compliance requirements are missing from the permit. The proposed permit allows non- quantifiable means of measurement (emission factors) in place of performance tests and CEMS that would quantify emissions.
Appears in 1 contract