findings of fact and director’s decision in the · pdf filesystem consists of the bottom...

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DIRECTOR’S DECISION

In the Matter of the Issuance of a Title V Operating Permit To

Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P.

Located in Claremont, New Hampshire

Facility Identification # 3301900029; Application # 09-0005

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) established a new federal permit program for the nation’s largest emission sources (called “major sources”). The CAAA required states to develop and implement this program consistent with federal regulations. The state rules implementing this operating permit program, commonly called “Title V,” took effect in New Hampshire on June 30, 1995. The Title V Operating Permit allows the facility to operate the devices listed in the permit according to terms and conditions specified in the permit. The Title V Operating Permits are issued for a period of 5 years.

There are typically four phases in the Title V Operating Permit process:

1. First, the permit application undergoes an initial review by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division (DES) to ensure that the information submitted is complete and addresses all appropriate regulatory requirements. If so, a “completeness determination” is issued by DES.

2. After the application has been deemed administratively complete, DES undertakes an extensive review, including but not limited to facility site visits and an analysis of historical information. Once DES has completed this review and is confident that the application accurately reflects the facility’s operations, DES develops a “draft Title V Operating Permit.” The draft Title V Operating Permit contains all applicable regulatory requirements (both state and federal) that pertain to the facility.

3. Once the draft Title V Operating Permit is prepared, a notice is published as required by the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Env-A 622 Permit Notice and Hearing

Procedures: Title V Operating Permits (under Env-A 622.02 Public Notice). The public, the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and any other interested parties are invited to submit comments on the draft Title V Operating Permit. An opportunity for a public hearing is also provided.

4. After all public comments have been received and evaluated by DES, a final determination regarding the permit is made by the Director of the Air Resources Division (Director). If the determination is favorable, the draft Title V Operating Permit is designated as “proposed” and sent to EPA for further review. A draft Title V Operating Permit may be modified as a result of comments received during the public comment period before it is sent to EPA as a proposed permit. A formal document is generated to address public comments and outline the changes made in response to these comments, if any. This document is called the “Findings of Fact and Director’s Decision.” The proposed Title V Operating Permit is reviewed by EPA for up to 45 days. If EPA has no objections within this timeframe, the final permit is issued.

Any person aggrieved by the Director’s decision can file an appeal with the Air Resources Council in accordance with the provisions of Env-A 622.09, Appeals.

Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P. September 11, 2012

Title V Operating Permit - Findings of Fact and Director’s Decision

Facility Description/Background

Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P. (Wheelabrator Claremont) operates a resource recovery facility in Claremont, New Hampshire. The facility combusts municipal solid waste (MSW) in two mass burn units that generate steam. The steam drives a turbine-generator to produce electricity for sale to the local utility. The gross generating capacity of the facility at its maximum capacity rating is nominally 6 megawatts (MW).

The municipal waste combustors (MWC) consist of two identical, mass-fired, water wall boilers, each with a combustion capacity of 100 tons per day1. Each unit is equipped with a 15 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) propane fired auxiliary burner. These burners are designed to preheat the furnace prior to the introduction of MSW during startup and to ensure efficient combustion during transient periods, including shutdown and malfunction. Air pollution control equipment for each MWC unit includes a powdered activated carbon injection system (PACIS), spray dryer absorber (SDA) and a fabric filter. The PACIS and SDA were both installed in 2005 to comply with the requirements of Env-A 3300, Municipal Waste Combustion. A time-shared continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is used to measure oxygen (O2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) from each MWC unit. Each boiler stack is equipped with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). Process parameters including steam flow rate, carbon feed rate and fabric filter inlet temperature are also continuously measured and recorded.

The grate system of each boiler deposits bottom ash through a bifurcated chute, equipped with a diverting knife, to the wet residue drag conveyors. The chute is welded to the boiler bottom at the grate outlet at one end and submerged in the wet ash slurry in the wet residue pits. This submersion acts to seal the bottom of the boiler against air infiltration and resultant boiler draft disruption.

The fly ash collection system collects fly ash from hoppers located on the spray dryer absorbers and fabric filters, discharging into the fly ash transfer system. The fly ash system is completely enclosed to prevent any fugitive emissions until the fly ash is moistened in the fly ash conditioning system.

The bottom ash and fly ash are discharged to a common disposal system. The common disposal system consists of the bottom wet residue drag conveyor, dewatering incline and ash bins. Prior to entering ash bins, the combined bottom/fly ash passes through a ferrous metals recovery system, where ferrous metals are separated by a magnet and discharged to a scrap metal bin, which is transported to a recycler for processing. The remaining ash is loaded into ash containers and transported to a landfill for final disposal.

1 Per Env-A 3302.02(c), each MWC unit is considered an existing small municipal waste combustion unit, which means a municipal waste combustion unit with a combustion capacity of at least 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste but no more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste for which construction was commenced on or before August 30, 1999.



Proposed Title V Operating Permit

Wheelabrator Claremont is subject to the Title V Operating Permit program because it is considered a major source of air emissions as defined in Env-A 101.115, Definitions - “Major

Source” and also because the two MWC units are subject to Section 129(e) of the 1990 CAAA. On June 25, 2004, DES issued Title V Operating Permit TV-OP-050 to Wheelabrator Claremont. The Title V Operating Permit expired on June 30, 2009. Pursuant to Env-A 609.07 Timely

Application, applications to renew Title V Operating Permits are due to DES six months prior to the expiration date of a facility’s existing Title V Operating Permit (i.e., by December 31, 2008 in this case). While the renewal application was postmarked December 30, 2008, DES received Wheelabrator Claremont’s renewal application on January 2, 2009. Since the renewal application was not received in a timely manner, the application shield provisions of Env-A 609.08, Application Shield do not apply. On June 3, 2009, Wheelabrator Claremont requested DES to waive the timely renewal application requirement so that it may continue to operate the facility. On June 24, 2009, DES approved Wheelabrator Claremont’s request and granted a waiver of the strict interpretation of Env-A 609.07(b), with the following conditions:

1. Wheelabrator Claremont shall continue to operate the facility under the terms and conditions of TV-OP-050 (as amended on August 28, 2006 & December 17, 2007);

2. The waiver is in effect from July 1, 2009 until such time as DES takes final action on Wheelabrator Claremont’s Title V Operating Permit renewal application.

DES conducted a technical and regulatory compliance review of the Title V renewal application. The current Title V Operating Permit was also reviewed and applicable regulations were updated. Since the issuance of the previous Title V Operating Permit, DES adopted more stringent emission limits for small MWC units under Env-A 3300 Municipal Waste Combustion, which became effective on February 2, 2008. Although these new limits are not in the existing Title V Operating Permit, Wheelabrator Claremont is still required to meet these limits.

Once DES completed its review, it prepared a “draft Title V Operating Permit” containing all applicable state and federal requirements, including the new Env-A 3300 emission limits. DES then published a public notice stating that the draft permit was available for review and comment. In accordance with Env-A 622 Permit Notice and Hearing Procedures: Title V Operating

Permits, a notice of request for public comments and opportunity for a public hearing was published in the Union Leader and Claremont Eagle Times on April 11, 2012. The notice invited public comment and indicated that any comments received during the public comment period would be considered in reaching a final decision. The public notice specified that the deadline for written comments was May 11, 2012.

A request for a public hearing was received prior to the May 11, 2012 deadline. In accordance with Env-A 622.05 Requests for Public Hearing, a hearing was scheduled for June 26, 2012, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Union Leader and Claremont Eagle Times on May 14, 2012. The notice indicated that written comments on the draft Title V Operating Permit would be accepted until June 26, 2012. The public hearing was held on June 26, 2012 at the



Claremont Senior Center located at 5 Acer Heights Road, Claremont, New Hampshire. At the public hearing, a request was made to extend the public comment period, which the hearing officer granted and extended until July 13, 2012. After the public hearing, DES received additional requests for an extension of the public comment period. In response, DES extended the public comment period until July 27, 2012.

During the June 26th public hearing, citizens offered testimony and comments regarding the operation of the Wheelabrator Claremont facility. Written comments from several individuals and environmental organizations were also received prior to the July 27, 2012 deadline. Pursuant to Env-A 622.07 Opportunity for Response, copies of all comments received by DES were forwarded to Wheelabrator Claremont for review and comment, if desired. Wheelabrator Claremont filed a written response to public comments on August 10, 2012. Written comments were also received from EPA on May 10, 2012. These comments are addressed in the following discussion.

Discussion During the public comment period and at the public hearing held on June 26, 2012, comments were received expressing concern over public health and environmental issues with respect to emissions from the Wheelabrator Claremont facility. The following discussion provides a detailed description of the regulatory requirements and addresses the issues presented both at the public hearing and in written comments submitted to DES prior to the close of the public comment period.

1. NH DES must deny the Title V Operating Permit - Through oral and written

comments submitted to DES, several commenters expressed opposition to the

Wheelabrator Claremont facility and urged DES not to issue the Title V Operating

Permit.

DES Response

As required by state and federal statutes, DES performs an evaluation of the application as submitted and compares it against applicable state and federal air quality requirements. If the evaluation indicates that the facility can comply with these requirements, then DES will proceed with issuing a permit. It should be noted that DES does not have the statutory authority to deny an air permit application for reasons other than to require compliance with air regulations. If DES' review of the application determines that the facility is able to comply with all applicable state and federal air regulations, then DES has no legal basis to deny the permit. A more detailed description of the DES review process and regulatory authority is presented below.

Env-A 609.18 Criteria for Permit Renewal requires DES to issue the Title V Operating Permit renewal only if the following conditions are met:

a. The Owner or Operator has filed a complete Title V renewal application - Wheelabrator Claremont submitted its Title V renewal application on January 2, 2009. Even though the application was not received in a timely manner, it was deemed



complete. DES issued a completeness determination letter to this effect on March 31, 2009.

b. The requirements for public participation specified in Env-A 622 have been satisfied - As explained in the previous section, DES provided the opportunity for public participation, including holding a public hearing in Claremont on June 26, 2012, as well as an extension of the comment period.

c. The requirements for notifying and responding to affected states as specified in Env-A 622.03, have been satisfied - On April 11, 2012, DES notified the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regarding Wheelabrator Claremont’s draft Title V Operating Permit.

d. The conditions of the proposed Title V Operating Permit provide for compliance with all requirements of Env-A 100 et seq. and the Clean Air Act - In order to ensure compliance with operator requirements and emission limits, the Title V Operating Permit includes operator training & certification, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

e. The EPA has received a copy of the proposed Title V Operating Permit and any notices required, and has not objected to the issuance of such permit - EPA has submitted comments on the draft Title V Operating Permit and these comments have been addressed in this document. Should EPA file a written objection to the issuance of a final Title V Operating Permit, DES will follow the procedures outlined in Env-A 609.14 Department Action Following EPA Objection.

The following discussion provides the basis for the issuance of the proposed Title V Operating Permit and explains how Wheelabrator Claremont demonstrated compliance with all applicable requirements of Env-A 100 et seq. and the Clean Air Act.

i. Regulatory Requirements

Wheelabrator Claremont is required to obtain a Title V Operating Permit pursuant to Section 129(e) of the CAAA and also because it is a “major source" of air emissions as defined in Env-A 101.115, Definitions - “Major Source”. The Title V Operating Permit is a facility-wide permit in that it brings together all applicable state and federal air pollution control requirements into a single permit. The Wheelabrator Claremont facility is subject to a variety of both state and federal regulations. The most significant regulation that affects the operation of the facility is Env-A 3300, Municipal Waste Combustion.

EPA developed emission guidelines for existing small MWC facilities specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 60, Subpart BBBB, Emission

Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units

Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999. Under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAAA, states are required to adopt regulations and submit a state plan that is at



least as stringent as the federal requirements. New Hampshire adopted Env-A 3300 (the state plan), incorporating these requirements on June 3, 2002. New Hampshire’s state plan was approved by EPA on February 10, 2003, with an effective date of April 11, 2003.

On January 1, 2006, the New Hampshire General Court adopted more stringent emission standards for small MWC units (RSA 125-C:10-a). DES subsequently readopted Env-A 3300 on February 2, 2008, which incorporated these new standards. New Hampshire’s amended state plan was submitted to EPA on January 29, 2009. It should be noted that the emission limits adopted by DES under Env-A 3300 are more stringent than the federal emission guidelines. The following table provides a comparison of emission limits between the federal emission guidelines and Env-A 3300 (which are included in the proposed Title V Operating Permit):

Table 1 - Emission Limits for Existing Small MWC units (at 7% O2)

Pollutant Federal Emission Guidelines

(40 CFR 60, Subpart BBBB)

MWC emission limits in the Proposed

Title V Operating Permit (Env-A 3300)

Particulate matter 70 mg/dscm 27 mg/dscm

Opacity 10% (6-minute average) 10% (6-minute average) Carbon monoxide 100 ppmdv 100 ppmdv

Cadmium 0.10 mg/dscm 0.040 mg/dscm

Lead 1.6 mg/dscm 0.44 mg/dscm

Mercury 0.08 mg/dscm or 85% control efficiency 0.028 mg/dscm or 85% control efficiency

Sulfur dioxide (daily limit)

77 ppmdv, or 50% reduction of potential sulfur dioxides emissions

77 ppmdv, or 50% of the potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration

Sulfur dioxide (monthly limit)

-- 29 ppmdv, or 25% of the potential sulfur

dioxide emission concentration

Hydrogen chloride (HCl)

250 ppmvd, or 50% reduction of potential hydrogen chloride emissions

29 ppmvd, or 5% of the potential hydrogen

chloride emission concentration

Dioxins/furans 125 ng/dscm (total mass) 30 ng/dscm (total mass)

Fugitive ash Visible emissions for no more than 5% of hourly observation period

Visible emissions for no more than 5% of hourly observation period

mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

ppmvd = parts per million dry volume

ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

Each MWC unit is also subject to a nitrogen oxides (NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) limit of 0.53 pounds per million British Thermal units (lb/MMBtu).

ii. Monitoring and Testing Requirements

The proposed Title V Operating Permit requires continuous monitoring of SO2, CO and opacity (visible emissions) from both MWC units. The proposed Title V Operating Permit also requires Wheelabrator Claremont to conduct periodic stack testing for NOx, particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), cadmium, lead,



mercury, dioxins/furans, fugitive ash and opacity. The proposed Title V Operating Permit also requires continuous monitoring of operational parameters such as steam flow rate, carbon feed rate and fabric filter inlet temperature. Table 6 of the proposed Title V Operating Permit lists all of the monitoring and testing requirements. Env-A 800 and 40 CFR Part 60 contain the performance specifications for CEMS and COMS, including required daily calibration checks, quarterly relative accuracy and linearity audits, and annual relative accuracy test audits (RATA). A RATA compares data from a facility CEMS to independent reference (stack test) method data. Audits conducted by Wheelabrator Claremont have demonstrated that both the CEMS and COMS consistently meet the above regulatory requirements. Wheelabrator Claremont conducted its most recent RATA on March 9, 2012. As with all annual RATAs, a DES representative was on-site to confirm the audit test, and each audit test report was reviewed in detail for technical validity.

iii. Facility Compliance Status

As part of the technical analysis of the application, DES reviewed the compliance history of the facility with respect to all state and federal air regulations, including compliance with emission limits. Wheelabrator Claremont has conducted numerous stack tests to verify compliance with the emission limits specified in their current Title V Operating Permit. These tests are conducted in accordance with Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, and EPA reference methods to ensure the quality/validity of the data collected. A comprehensive review of the stack tests performed since 2005 indicates compliance with emission limits. During these tests, a DES representative was on-site to confirm representative testing, and each test was reviewed in detail for technical validity. All the test reports were ultimately accepted by DES as being technically valid and representing the emissions occurring at the time of the stack test. Tables 2 and 3 below summarize the stack test results for both the MWC units:

Table 2 - Wheelabrator Claremont NOx RACT Compliance Stack Test Results for MWC Units 1 & 2

(lb/MMBtu)

Date Conducted Unit 1 Unit 2 NOx RACT Limit

May 15, 2012 0.456 0.476

June 7, 2011 0.42 0.331

June 9, 2010 0.43 0.516

June 1, 2009 0.442 0.468

June 10, 2008 0.363 0.413

May 21, 2007 0.425 0.507

May 11, 2006 0.453 0.44

May 19, 2005 0.438 0.47

0.53



2 Visible emissions for no more than 5% of hourly observation period. 3 Wheelabrator-Claremont failed to conduct required compliance stack testing within 36 months of the most recent stack test. On October 24, 2011, DES issued Administrative Fine by Consent No. AF 11-059 which required Wheelabrator-Claremont to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DES received the payment on October 31, 2011. 4 During the November 2005 compliance stack test, Wheelabrator Claremont also conducted carbon optimization tests for both the units to determine the optimum carbon feed rate. The optimized carbon feed rate is the carbon feed

Table 3 - Wheelabrator Claremont Compliance Stack Test Results for MWC Units 1 & 2

Particulate

Matter Cadmium Lead Dioxins/Furans Mercury

Hydrogen

Chloride

Fugitive

Ash2

Opacity

Units mg/dscm mg/dscm mg/dscm ng/dscm mg/dscm ppm % %

Emission limit (at 7% O2)

27 0.040 0.44 30 0.028 or

85% control efficiency

29 5 10

Stack

test date October 19-21, 2010

3

Unit 1 1.3 0.000135 0.00047 1.1 0.00332

(99% removal)

6.4 0 0

Unit 2 1.2 0.000192 0.00125 0.1 0.00405

(94% removal)

6.9 0 0

Stack

test date September 5-7, 2007

Unit 1 4.77 0.00335 0.0333 4.7 0.0061 (88.7%

removal) 9.97 0 0

Unit 2 1.03 0.00073 0.0061 4.2 0.0037 (93.3%

removal) 11.57 0 0

Stack

test date October 24-26, 2006

Unit 1 1.6 0.00021 0.00072 2.8 0.005 (96%

removal) 5.2 0 0

Unit 2 1.7 0.00047 0.00184 3.5 0.005 (95%

removal) 6.5 0 0

Stack

test date November 15-17 and November 29-30, 2005

4

Unit 1 2.58 0.003 0.097 0.7 0.0123 (79.3%

removal) 21.45 0 0

Unit 2 0.6 0.001 0.309 0.73 0.008

(94.3% removal)

17 0 0



Since the issuance of the current Title V Operating Permit, DES and EPA also performed the following compliance inspections of the Wheelabrator Claremont facility. The findings of each inspection are summarized in Table 4 below:

Table 4 - Wheelabrator Claremont Compliance Inspection History

Date Inspection type Organization Findings

5/19/11 On-site Full Compliance Evaluation

DES Facility in compliance; The inspection report noted some minor reporting deficiencies in the emission reports submitted by the facility for the year 2010. On July 15, 2011, Wheelabrator Claremont re-submitted the Annual Emissions and NOx reports to correct the deficiencies noted in the inspection report

5/1/09 On-site Compliance Inspection

EPA Region I EPA questioned Wheelabrator Claremont regarding the exceedances of CO emission limit.

EPA also noted that Wheelabrator Claremont failed to include the “certificate of accuracy” statement in the compliance stack test reports. No other issues were noted during the inspection.

9/12/07 On-site Full Compliance Evaluation

DES Facility in compliance.

7/26/05 Off-site Full Compliance Evaluation

DES Facility in compliance. The inspection report noted concerns with increasing CO emissions.

With regard to exceedances of the carbon monoxide emission limit noted in the inspection reports, please see discussion point #10.

iv. Air Quality Impact Analysis

On March 28, 2012, DES conducted an air dispersion impact analysis to evaluate the impacts of regulated air pollutants on ambient air quality. The EPA-approved air dispersion modeling method AERMOD was used to determine the impacts. Results of the air dispersion modeling, using the worst-case emission rates (i.e. permit limits), indicated that the emissions from the facility will not result in exceedances of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants or Ambient Air Limits (AALs) for NH Regulated Toxic Air Pollutants (RTAPs). Please note that both NAAQS and AALs are health-based standards. The results of this analysis are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below.

rate that achieves the greatest reduction of mercury emissions per pound of carbon used. The optimum carbon feed rate was determined to be 1 lb/hr for each MWC unit.



Table 5- Maximum Impacts (ug/m3) from Wheelabrator Claremont

(National Ambient Air Quality Standards)

Pollutant Avg Time Contribution Background Impact NAAQS Pass/Fail

Annual 1.4 8 9.4 80 PASS

24-Hour 7.0 31 38.0 365 PASS SO2

3-Hour 34.4 118 152.4 1,300 PASS

Annual 0.2 13 13.2 50 PASS PM10

24-Hour 0.9 33 33.9 150 PASS

NO2 Annual 3.1 15 18.1 100 PASS

8-Hour 11.3 4,025 4,036.3 10,000 PASS

CO

1-Hour 46.7 6,900 6,946.7 40,000 PASS

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) impacts include a 75% conversion rate of NOx to NO2

Table 6 - Wheelabrator Claremont Maximum RTAP Impacts (ug/m3)

5

Pollutant 24-Hour

Impact

24-Hour

AAL

Annual

Impact

Annual

AAL Pass/Fail

Arsenic 0.00231 0.036 0.00081 0.024 PASS

Cadmium 0.00166 0.036 0.00033 0.024 PASS

Chromium 0.00463 1.8 0.00161 1.2 PASS

Lead 0.04687 0.15 0.01623 0.12 PASS

Hydrogen Chloride 1.75386 20 0.31893 20 PASS

PCBs 0.00092 0.1 0.00032 0.1 PASS

Nickel 0.00020 0.36 0.00004 0.24 PASS

Copper 0.00034 3.6 0.00006 2.4 PASS

Dioxins/Furans * 1.20 x 10-07 2.30 x 10-07 2.18 x 10-08 2.30 x 10-07 PASS

Mercury 0.00113 0.3 0.00020 0.3 PASS

* The impacts of total dioxins/furans (calculated using 60 ng/dscm at 7% O2 for two units combined) are conservatively compared to AALs for 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), which is the only dioxin compound regulated under Env-A 1400.

5 Impacts includes emissions from a 0.14 MMBtu/hr waste oil heater, which supplies heat for an attached equipment shed on the north side of the main building.



As required by Env-A 609.10 Department Review of Application, DES has reviewed Wheelabrator Claremont’s Title V renewal application against all applicable elements of the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan, Env-A 100 et seq. and federal regulations. Through this technical and regulatory review, DES has determined that Wheelabrator Claremont meets all applicable air quality standards. Based on the above discussion, DES has no basis to deny the Title V Operating Permit to the Wheelabrator Claremont facility.

2. The Title V Operating Permit for Wheelabrator allows for significant levels of air

pollution that threatens the area’s air quality and consequently jeopardizes the health of

community members. The commenter expressed particular concern regarding exposure

to particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen chloride.

DES Response

As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for criteria pollutants, namely, particulate matter6 (including PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards are established to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to conduct a periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based, as well as the standards themselves7. As part of this review, EPA conducts extensive research (including health studies) to establish the basis for the NAAQS. Air dispersion modeling conducted by DES verified that the emissions from the facility will not result in exceedances of any NAAQS.

The Wheelabrator Claremont facility employs spray dryer absorbers, a type of pollution control technology that utilizes a lime slurry to remove hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions from the flue gas of the two MWC units. Wheelabrator Claremont has demonstrated compliance with the PM and HCl permit limits by conducting periodic stack testing (see Table 3).

While HCl is regulated under Env-A 3300, it is also subject to the ambient air limits established in Env-A 1400, Regulated Toxic Air Pollutants (RTAPs). As part of DES' permit application review, all RTAPs emitted by the facility (including HCl) were evaluated for compliance with Env-A 1400 (see Table 6). DES established AALs for RTAPs for the express purpose of protecting public health. DES employs a well-established (and the most widely accepted) risk assessment methodology to develop health-based standards for RTAPs, utilizing the most current toxicological data and health effects information available from the scientific literature.

6 Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter is referred to as PM10 and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter is referred to as PM2.5. 7 EPA’s detailed process for reviewing the NAAQS can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html



The AALs are reviewed and updated annually, also employing a well-established methodology to ensure that they are consistent with the most current research findings for each chemical. Based on this established methodology, DES has determined that the AALs for HCl and all other RTAPs are based on the most recent peer-reviewed science available, are protective of public health, and are appropriate for the regulation of these toxic air pollutants. Further, as shown in Table 6 above, the maximum ambient impacts of all RTAPs emitted by the Wheelabrator Claremont facility are demonstrated to be below their respective AALs.

3. Retrofitting the incinerators: Increase in Dioxin emissions

One commenter questioned DES during the public hearing and through written

comments regarding the increase in “dioxin” emission rates following the installation

of air pollution control equipment. The commenter cited the following from the

“Working on Waste” 2011 Report on Wheelabrator Claremont:

"In annual reports for the period January 2000 to September 2005,

Wheelabrator lists emission rates for dioxin that are based on stack testing

conducted in 2000. Following installation of the retrofit equipment, DEECO

conducted stack testing in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. For those years,

Wheelabrator reported dioxin emission rates that exceed the pre-retrofit rate,

with the 2010 rate 1247% higher than the 2000 rate (Figure 2)” and “despite the

lack of confidence in the testing protocol, DES has concluded, with inadequate

basis in fact, that dioxin emissions from the Wheelabrator incinerator are safe”.

DES Response

As background, Wheelabrator Claremont installed a Powdered Activated Carbon Injection System (PACIS) and Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) on each MWC unit in 2005 in order to comply with the requirements of Env-A 3300. Specifically, the PACIS and SDA were installed to reduce mercury and acid gas (including HCl) emissions, respectively.

Each MWC unit is subject to an emission limit of 30 ng/dscm (at 7% O2) for dioxins/furans. As the commenter noted, Wheelabrator Claremont conducted compliance stack tests in 2000 (prior to the PACIS/SDA installations), as well as in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010. However, contrary to the commenter’s statement that there was a “lack of confidence in the testing protocol,” the public record confirms that DES reviewed and approved each stack testing protocol as meeting the objectives for conducting compliance testing as specified in the Title V Operating Permit and the applicable state and federal regulations. All testing was observed onsite by DES engineers. Dioxin emissions were measured using EPA Test Method 23 and the tests were conducted in accordance with Env-A 802, Compliance Stack Testing for Stationary Sources. Reports for each test were reviewed by DES and found to be technically acceptable.

As shown in Figure 1 below, emissions of dioxins and furans are well below the emission limit for both the MWC units. The highest concentration of dioxins/furans, which was measured during the 2007 compliance stack test (4.7 ng/dscm for MWC Unit 1), is 15.6% of the emission limit (i.e., 30 ng/dscm).



Figure 1 - Wheelabrator Claremont Stack Test Results for Dioxins and Furans

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2005 2006 2007 2010

Tested on 7/28/00, 11/15/05, 10/24/06, 9/7/07 & 10/19/10

To

tal

PC

DD

/PC

DF

, n

g/d

scm

@ 7

% O

2

Unit 1

Unit 2

Emission limit

Since the commenter expressed particular concern regarding dioxin emissions, DES conducted a thorough review of compliance stack tests conducted in 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010. The results are summarized in Table 7 below.



Table 7 - Wheelabrator Claremont Summary of Stack Test Results for Dioxins

(both MWC units combined - lb/hr)

COMPOUND 2000 2005 2006 2007 2010

2378-TCDD 1.31 x 10-10 8.22 x 10-11 2.02 x 10-10 3.46 x 10-10 5.92 x 10-11

Other TCDD 1.33 x 10-08 2.16 x 10-09 2.75 x 10-08 1.94 x 10-08 2.48 x 10-09

12378-PeCDD 7.74 x 10-10 1.77 x 10-10 8.92 x 10-10 9.68 x 10-10 1.63 x 10-10

Other PeCDD 1.74 x 10-08 2.70 x 10-09 3.87 x 10-08 3.07 x 10-08 3.92 x 10-09

123478-HxCDD 7.92 x 10-10 1.13 x 10-10 1.32 x 10-09 1.19 x 10-09 1.52 x 10-10

123678-HxCDD 1.73 x 10-09 4.78 x 10-10 2.91 x 10-09 4.62 x 10-09 4.70 x 10-10

123789-HxCDD 1.29 x 10-09 3.44 x 10-10 1.26 x 10-09 2.18 x 10-09 1.60 x 10-10

Other HXCDD 2.54 x 10-08 5.00 x 10-09 4.41 x 10-08 5.69 x 10-08 6.53 x 10-09

1234678-HpCDD 9.86 x 10-09 3.31 x 10-09 1.59 x 10-08 3.36 x 10-08 3.65 x 10-09

Other HpCDD 7.10 x 10-09 3.08 x 10-09 1.60 x 10-08 3.04 x 10-08 3.87 x 10-09

OCDD 1.89 x 10-08 6.95 x 10-09 1.95 x 10-08 5.43 x 10-08 7.21 x 10-09

PCDD 9.67 x 10-08 2.44 x 10-08 1.68 x 10-07 2.35 x 10-07 2.87 x 10-08

Notes:

PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (includes all dioxins)

TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

PeCDD = Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

HxCDD = Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

HpCDD = Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

OCDD = Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

As shown in the above table, there are variations in dioxin emissions over each test. This is not unexpected - as is the case with virtually any air pollutant, emissions are expected to vary slightly from test to test based on several factors, including small differences in the fuel supply or waste composition. It should also be noted that dioxin emissions are measured at extremely low levels. Therefore, small changes in measured emissions may represent a significant proportional change. For example, PCDD emissions in 2007 (2.35 x 10-07 lb/hr) were approximately two and half times higher than the 2000 stack test emissions (9.67 x 10-08 lb/hr). This represents an increase of 143%, which taken alone, one could view as statistically significant, but the data in Figure 1 also clearly demonstrates that dioxin/furan emissions measured during the stack tests are significantly below the regulatory limit.

It should be noted from Figure 2 below that the 2010 stack test emissions for dioxins (PCDD) were one-third of the emissions determined from the 2000 stack test. Based on the information presented in the written comments, DES is unable to verify the commenter’s claim that the emission rate for 2010 is 1,247% higher than the 2000 rate using any of the individual dioxin, TCDD or PCDD compounds. Please also note that the



emission rates presented by the commenter (Figure 2: Dioxin Emission Rates, Before and

After Retrofit Equipment, Working on Waste 2011 Report) are approximately 100 million (i.e., 108) times higher than the emission rates determined by the compliance stack tests.

Figure 2 - Comparison of Dioxin (PCDD) emission rates for Wheelabrator Claremont

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2000 2005 (APCE installed) 2010

Stack test year

PC

DD

, lb

/hr

x 1

0-0

8

APCE = Air Pollution Control Equipment



4. The air is often quite dirty and it is difficult to see the mountains of Vermont on certain

days. The commenter attributed emissions from Wheelabrator Claremont for poor air

quality in Claremont and poor visibility of mountains. The commenter noted that high

elevation points such as Bible Hill in Claremont and Glidden Hill in West Unity receive

dangerous levels of pollutants from the incinerator.

DES Response

Decades of data collected from ambient air monitoring networks have established air pollution transported from upwind regions as the predominant contributor to both unhealthy air quality (primarily for ozone and particulate matter) and impaired visibility in New Hampshire. This "transported" pollution comes not only from large stationary sources such as power plants, but also from the numerous smaller stationary and mobile sources (e.g. automobiles) that collectively make a substantial impact on ambient air quality.

Some larger sources of air pollution can, individually, create localized air quality issues. A primary purpose of DES' regulatory review is to ensure that stationary sources will not create such problems. DES' review, as discussed earlier, concluded that emissions from the Wheelabrator Claremont facility do not exceed any health or welfare based emissions standards.

Visibility impairment (also referred to as "regional haze") is a well understood phenomenon based on extensive data collected from air monitoring networks across the country. While larger stationary sources may individually create a very small contribution to the makeup of regional haze, DES is confident that the visibility impairment issues noted by the commenter are coming from a much larger, regional source of air pollution that is transported into the state, not the Wheelabrator Claremont facility in particular.

DES, in partnership with the EPA, mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, has already undertaken efforts to reduce regional haze, which include emissions reductions from New Hampshire sources. For example, Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze (effective January 8, 2011) is intended to help address regional haze while simultaneously providing the health co-benefits of reductions in particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions.



5. Comments related to ash transportation

a. Comment - When a pollution-carrying ash truck dumps its load, ash adheres to truck

frame, tires, body and container. As it travels the streets of Claremont to and from

the incinerator it dribbles this deadly poison among the population. This could be

stopped by adding a permit condition that the ash truck be steam cleaned at the incinerator and at the dump.

DES Response

Ash from the two MWC units is loaded into open top "roll-off" type containers that have a rear tail gate. The rear tail gate has gaskets and seals to prevent leakage and once loaded, the containers are covered with a tarp during transport to prevent fugitive emissions. These containers are transported by truck to the landfill. The outside of the containers and the tail gate’s gaskets & seals are visually inspected prior to use for dirt and leaks. As necessary, the containers and transport trucks are pressure washed inside the facility. Corrective actions for leaks, repairs, etc. are recorded. DES believes these measures, combined with the permit condition in Table 5, Item 10.b of the proposed Title V Operating Permit (see response to Comment 5.b, below) are adequate to prevent leakage during transport.

b. Comment - The permit condition should require transportation in closed containers,

with no ash outside of those containers and outside of any truck hauling ash to

insure no unintended dispersal of the ash.

DES Response

Table 5, Item 10.b of the draft Title V Operating Permit requires that ash transport vehicles must be totally enclosed or covered.

6. Retrofit equipment makes ash more toxic and creates exposure risks through ash

handling, transport, and disposal.

DES Response

The ash is sampled and tested, per an ash sampling/testing plan as required by Wheelabrator Claremont's Solid Waste Permit. The protocol ensures that the waste is properly classified prior to disposal. If classified as a hazardous waste, the waste is required to be managed in accordance with DES Hazardous Waste Rules Env-Hw 100 et. seq. However, efforts to reduce the toxicity of the waste stream such as the ban on mercury disposal (RSA 149-M:58) are intended to reduce the risk of exposure.

On October 28, 2010, an ash spill occurred at the facility during the cleaning of the fly ash conveyor screw. An analysis of the spilled ash sample showed that the cadmium level in the material exceeded the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) limit of 1 part per million (ppm). The spilled ash was therefore containerized and disposed off-site as hazardous waste.



7. Safe alternatives to burning waste are available. Close the incinerator and implement

Antioch New England Institute’s (ANEI) 2007 Recycling-Based Waste Management

Action Plan for the Communities of Sullivan County.

DES Response

DES would like to assure the public that efforts are being made to move towards higher recycling goals for the state by holding internal and external stakeholder meetings to find innovative and constructive ways to increase the state's recycling rate. New Hampshire law supports integrated solid waste disposal solutions which are environmentally safe and economically sound (RSA 149-M:3). RSA 149-M:3 endorses, in order of preference, the following waste management methods:

a. Source reduction

b. Recycling and reuse

c. Composting

d. Waste-to-energy technologies (including incineration)

e. Incineration without resource recovery

f. Landfilling

Recycling is higher on the ladder as an environmentally sound alternative to waste disposal, but must include an infrastructure of the following: recycling at the residential level and collections at the local level, combined with economically viable markets/ processing facilities in order for it to achieve higher goals. Efforts on the part of DES are directed at promoting these goals. Nevertheless, waste-to-energy technologies such as the one employed at Wheelabrator Claremont are a commonly accepted method of waste disposal and as such, DES' review is limited to whether the facility can comply with all state and federal air pollutions control laws and regulations, as applicable.



8. The permit should spell out how the operator is required to meet the permit condition of

no RCRA waste

DES Response

Wheelabrator Claremont is not a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) for hazardous waste and as such cannot accept any hazardous waste. The DES Solid Waste Program Rules (Env-SW) stipulate the types of waste that can be accepted at the facility. “Solid Waste”, as defined in Env-Sw 104.36, specifically excludes hazardous wastes (as defined in RSA 147-A:2). As per Wheelabrator Claremont’s Solid Waste Permit DPHS-SW-84-010 (originally issued on December 6, 1984 and most recently amended on May 6, 2008), no hazardous waste is allowed to be accepted at the facility and site personnel must understand the materials that are prohibited.

NH Solid Waste Rule Env-Sw 705.03, Additional Signs and Postings requires the Operator to post signs, at a conspicuous place or places adjacent to the incinerator, stating both the types of authorized wastes and prohibited wastes (among other items) based on the provisions of the facility’s Solid Waste Permit.

The above provisions are enforced by DES Solid Waste Management Bureau.

Table 5, Item 10 of the proposed Title V Operating Permit specifically prohibits combustion of toxic or hazardous wastes that are subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the two MWC units. The proposed Title V Operating Permit only allows for the combustion of type 0,1,2,3 and 6 wastes (as defined in Env-A 101) in the two MWC units.

Table 8, Item 5 of the proposed Title V Operating Permit requires Wheelabrator Claremont to keep records of type and amount of waste combusted in each MWC unit. This information is also required to be included in the Annual Emissions Report. In addition, Table 9, Item 6 of the proposed Title V Operating Permit requires Wheelabrator Claremont to submit an Annual Compliance Certification to both DES and EPA. The Annual Compliance Certification must contain the following information:

a. The terms and conditions of the permit that are basis of the certification.

b. The compliance status of the source with respect to each term and condition of the permit.

Any report submitted to DES or EPA must include a “certificate of accuracy” statement signed by the responsible official for the facility (see Condition XXI.B of the proposed Title V Operating Permit). By submitting this statement with the report, the responsible official for the facility is certifying that the information submitted in the report is true and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge. DES believes that the permit conditions noted above, along with the requirements under the Solid Waste Management rules, are sufficient to verify compliance with the requirement that no RCRA wastes be combusted in the two MWC units.



9. Prohibit waste coming from out of Claremont region and other states

DES Response

The proposed Title V Operating Permit allows for the combustion of municipal solid waste in the two MWC units. There are no provisions in Env-A 100 et. seq., New Hampshire statutes, or the Clean Air Act, under which DES could regulate “where” the MSW could come from. DES does not have any regulatory authority to prevent Wheelabrator Claremont from receiving MSW from other communities in New Hampshire or other states in the United States, as these types of prohibitions have been determined to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court8.

10. Exceedances of carbon monoxide emission limit

DES Response

Carbon monoxide emissions from each MWC unit are limited to 100 ppmvd (at 7% O2, 4-hour block average). This emission limit does not apply during the periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction of the MWC unit. CO emissions are continuously measured by a certified CEMS. In 2009, Wheelabrator Claremont reported nine permit deviations of the 4-hour block average for CO. Permit deviation reports submitted by the facility noted that insufficient mixing of the refuse on the tipping room floor was the primary cause for most of these exceedances. Other causes for the exceedances included the unexpected9 unavailability of the propane burner and a blockage of refuse (i.e., MSW) on the feed table. In each instance, the plant operators attempted to mitigate the problem and corrected the problem quickly to return to below the CO emission limits. In response to the permit deviations, DES issued a Notice of Past Violation on July 21, 2010. DES required Wheelabrator Claremont to continue training its operators on the proper refuse mixing techniques. This is particularly important when the weather conditions increase the likelihood of wet and/or snowy refuse.

Subsequently on September 28, 2011, Wheelabrator Claremont submitted a summary of combustion controller upgrades that took place at the facility during 2009-2011. Wheelabrator Claremont explained that the multi-phased controller upgrades have improved the overall quality and consistency of combustion. The controller upgrade project entailed upgrading the old CLCO3 microprocessor-based loop controllers with new MOD 30 ML state-of-the-art microprocessor-based controllers, as well as specific on-the-job training of plant operators in the new control operations. The main reason for

8 Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978); The US Supreme Court found a New Jersey law prohibiting the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State" unconstitutional because it violated the US Commerce Clause. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/617/case.html 9 With regard to the CO exceedance that occurred on January 18, 2009, overly wet waste (due to snow) fed to MWC Unit #2 led to poor combustion. When the operator tried to start the auxiliary propane burner, it would not start because of a blown fuse. The operator replaced the fuse promptly.



these upgrades was to improve the overall combustion process and minimize CO emissions. Wheelabrator Claremont reported:

� Two CO exceedances in 2010;

� Three CO exceedances in 2011; and

� One CO exceedance during January - August, 2012.

The proposed Title V Operating Permit requires plant-specific operator training which requires certain facility employees (such as the chief facility operator, crane or load handlers) to review the site specific operating manual (SSOM) on an annual basis. The SSOM contains proper procedures for receiving, handling and feeding MSW and also the procedures to be followed during startup, shutdown or malfunction. The main purpose of this training requirement is to minimize CO emissions.

11. One commenter noted that Condition XVI, Operational Flexibility does not hold the

operator to the standard they have set for themselves. The commenter noted that the two

plant stacks remove 99% and 94%, respectively of mercury (during October 2010 stack

test). The commenter noted that Condition XVI holds the plant to 85% efficiency and

the plant has license to emit more mercury than they are capable of removing from

stack gas. The commenter requested that the permit condition be changed and that the

operator be held to the actual removal level achieved for all pollutants, especially

mercury, when there are operational changes contemplated or made at the plant.

DES Response

Permit Condition XVI is intended to provide operational flexibility to the Owner or Operator of a facility in that it allows for minor changes at the facility without requiring a permit modification. The comment indicates this condition authorizes the facility to "back off" the operation of air pollution control equipment and allow for higher emissions, provided that the emission limits in the permit are still met. However, Condition XVI was not established to authorize an increase in emissions.

As shown in Table 3 of this document, mercury emissions from each MWC unit have consistently remained well below the emission limit of 0.028 mg/dscm at 7% O2. However, the mercury removal efficiency varied from 79% to 99% as expressed in terms of a percentage. This variation in percent removal efficiency is due to a difference in the inlet concentration of mercury in the exhaust gases from each MWC unit. As an example, the inlet concentration of mercury from MWC Unit 1 during the 2010 compliance stack test was much higher than the 2005 test (0.271 mg/dscm vs. 0.0897 mg/dscm, respectively). Because it is easier to achieve larger percent emission reductions when the inlet concentrations are higher, the removal efficiency (99%) achieved during the 2010 compliance stack test is higher than the one during 2005 test (79%).

Specifying a minimum percent reduction alone is not reasonable, simply because the inlet mercury concentration may be at such a low level, or even zero, making the removal requirement impossible to meet solely in terms of a percentage. Further, holding the facility solely to an outlet mercury concentration (in mg/dscm at 7% O2) achieved during



the previous test is not reasonable, because the inlet (pre-control) mercury concentration will vary from test to test. For example, if the previous stack test showed zero mercury emissions, even a 99.9% removal efficiency on a subsequent test would not be in compliance, although the actual emissions may be orders of magnitude below the regulatory limits.

In order to ensure maximum mercury removal during normal operation, the proposed Title V Operating Permit requires that for each MWC unit:

a. Carbon feed rate be maintained at or above the highest average level established during the most recent mercury compliance stack test. Wheelabrator Claremont complies with the carbon feed rate requirement by continuously monitoring the volumetric screw feeder speed.

b. The temperature at the inlet of the particulate matter control device cannot exceed 17oC above the maximum demonstrated temperature of the particulate matter control device10 (4-hour block average). Wheelabrator Claremont complies with this requirement by continuously monitoring the fabric filter inlet temperature for each unit. The maximum demonstrated fabric filter temperatures determined during the 2010 compliance stack test are 318 oF and 310 oF respectively, for MWC units 1 and 2.

Wheelabrator Claremont also monitors the lime slurry rate in order to ensure maximum acid gas (SO2 and HCl) removal. As explained in the previous sections, emission limits in the Title V Operating Permit are more stringent than the federal emission guidelines. DES has only the authority to require Wheelabrator Claremont to meet the emission standards specified in Env-A 100 et seq. Any facility modification will be evaluated by DES in accordance with Env-A 612 Permit

Amendments, Modifications, and Revisions. If a Temporary Permit or significant modification to the Title V Operating Permit is required, the public will be provided the requisite review and comment period.

10 Per 40 CFR 1940 Definitions, maximum demonstrated temperature of the particulate matter control device means the highest 4-hour block arithmetic average flue gas temperature measured at the inlet of the particulate matter control device during 4 consecutive hours in the course of the most recent stack test for dioxins/furans emissions that demonstrates compliance with the limits specified in the permit. The particulate matter control device for each MWC unit at Wheelabrator Claremont is a fabric filter.



12. Comments related to public health - Many commenters expressed concern over the

potential health impacts on local residents resulting from emissions of air pollutants

from Wheelabrator Claremont. Several commenters took the position that even with the

installation of air pollution control equipment in 2005, the facility will still emit

unacceptable levels of air pollution, and that DES should require the facility to shut

down.

DES Response

In the past, DES has received similar concerns about the health impacts of Wheelabrator Claremont. In response, New Hampshire’s Environmental Health Program (EHP) prepared and released on December 16, 2009, a report11 entitled “Public Health Assessment - Ambient Air Quality in Claremont”. This report was prepared by EHP under a cooperative agreement with the United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The overall conclusion of this report is that ambient air in the Claremont area does not present a health hazard to the general population.

EHP evaluated air quality in the Claremont area and found it to be in compliance with all National Ambient Air Quality Standards, in particular SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and ozone (O3). There were infrequent occasions when ozone and particulate pollution reached levels of concern for sensitive individuals (people with heart conditions or certain respiratory diseases). Atmospheric analysis of O3 and PM 2.5 has shown, however, that these events originate from regional and distant sources and are transported by wind over long distances to the area. O3 and PM 2.5 levels measured in the Claremont area are generally similar to or lower than the levels of these pollutants measured in other locations in New Hampshire.

The report also evaluated air quality data for 27 regulated toxic air pollutants and found that the individual and combined exposure levels do not pose a hazard to the public. The levels of these air pollutants in the Claremont area are not expected to impact non-cancer disease rates; similarly, their effect on local cancer rates was found to be negligible. Some toxic air pollutants, like mercury and dioxins/furans, are difficult to monitor in ambient air. Air dispersion modeling analyses of mercury emissions from local sources indicated that mercury levels in ambient air and food (the primary route of exposure) are below the health-based levels associated with adverse health outcomes. With respect to dioxins/furans, air dispersion modeling conducted by DES also found that ambient air concentrations of these contaminants in the Claremont area are below a level of health concern.

In conclusion, DES has determined through air quality dispersion modeling and the public health assessment that emissions from Wheelabrator Claremont do not pose a threat to public health.

11 http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/pehb/ehs/hrap/documents/claremontphafinal121609.pdf



13. Comments from the United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region I

a. New Hampshire should explain in the “Permit Application Review Summary” how the terms and conditions on page 12, Table 5, Item 11 meet the requirements in the SIP for emergency generators (Env-A 1211.11, as of August 21, 1995).

b. Table 5, Item 12: Change the citation under “Regulatory Cite” from Env-A 1211.01(j)(1) to Env-A 1211.11(b).

DES Response

DES updated the regulatory cite for Table 5, Item 12 accordingly. The Permit Application Review Summary was also updated to reflect the SIP [State Implementation Plan] approved rule Env-A 1211.11(b) as the regulatory basis for limiting the hours of operation for the emergency generator.

c. Table 5, Item 4 - Temporary Permit should be cited as the “regulatory cite” instead of the citation to an operating permit, since the Temporary Permit is considered the NSR [New Source Review] construction permit in NH’s SIP.

DES Response

As per EPA’s comment, the originally issued Temporary Permits TP-C-52 & TP-C-53 are cited as the regulatory basis for the annual MSW throughput limits for each MWC unit.

d. Table 5, Items 5, 6 & 7a: New Hampshire should provide the actual value from the last stack test for the operating parameters contained in these items in the Permit Application Review Summary.

DES Response

As per EPA’s request, DES provided process parameters (steam flow rate, carbon feed rate and fabric filter inlet temperature) measured for each MWC unit during the October 19-21, 2010 compliance stack test in the Permit Application Review Summary.

e. Table 5, Item 7b: The methods for determining compliance with the amount of activated carbon used by the facility should be listed as alternative operative scenarios. Alternative operating scenarios will make it clear which method the facility is using to determine compliance at a given time.

DES Response

Table 5, Item 7 - Footnote 6 was added to the Title V permit to clarify that Wheelabrator Claremont calculates required quarterly carbon usage on a plant basis, using Equation (1) of the proposed Title V Operating Permit.



f. Table 5, Item 16: The limitation for sulfur content in gaseous fuels in New Hampshire’s SIP is 5 grains per 100 cubic feet, calculated as H2S. See Env-A 402.03 as of December 24, 1990. Since this limit is more stringent than the limit of 15 grains per 100 cubic feet from Env-A 1605.01, the Title V permit must limit the amount of sulfur in the propane to 5 grains per 100 cubic feet.

DES Response

The sulfur content limit of 15 grains (gr) per 100 standard cubic feet (scf) required by Env-A 1605.01 Sulfur Content Limitation for Gaseous Fuels was included in Temporary Permit FP-T-0108. Since this limit is less stringent than SIP approved limit of 5 gr/100 scf, this permit condition was moved to Table 4, State-only Enforceable Operational and Emission Limitations of the Title V Operating Permit.

g. Permit condition no. VIII.D: This condition is required to be listed as only enforceable by state since Env-A 3000 and Env-A 3100 have not been approved into the New Hampshire SIP.

DES Response

Permit condition VIII.D has been changed to reflect that this is a State-Only Enforceable Condition

Findings of Fact

DES has based its decision with respect to the application for renewal of the Title V Operating Permit for Wheelabrator Claremont on the following findings of fact:

1. Wheelabrator Claremont filed an application for the renewal of its existing Title V Operating Permit on January 2, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of Env-A 609.18 Criteria for Permit Renewal.

2. DES conducted a comprehensive review of the proposed project and the compliance history of the facility. In addition, DES considered comments provided during the public hearing and submitted in writing to DES during the public comment period. Based on its review and considerations, DES determined that Wheelabrator Claremont meets all state and federal air regulations, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants and the New Hampshire Ambient Air Limits for all regulated toxic air pollutants.

3. In order to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements, various monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting conditions have been included in the Title V Operating Permit. These include requirements for continuous emissions monitoring, periodic compliance stack ting and monitoring of operational parameters.



Director’s Decision After consideration of the Title V Operating Permit Application and all public comments, the application is approved and a Proposed Title V Operating Permit is hereby issued. Pursuant to New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 125-C:12, III and Env-A 622.09, Appeals, any person aggrieved by this action may file a petition for appeal with the Air Resources Council which shall be received within 30 days of the date below. Such appeal and 15 copies shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Env-AC 200, Procedural Rules and forwarded to the Chair of the Air Resources Council at the address below:

Air Resources Council Attn: Appeals Clerk c/o DES, Legal Unit 29 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095

If no petition is filed within the 30-day period, this decision will become final.

___________________________ ___09/11/12_____ Craig A. Wright Date Acting Director Air Resources Division cc: City of Claremont Public Hearing Attendees/Public Commenters Donald Dahl, USEPA Region I

findings of fact and director’s decision in the · pdf filesystem consists of the bottom...

Documents