1 / 11

Proposed Article 6 Permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Buckingham Compressor Station

This article discusses the proposed permit requirements for the Buckingham Compressor Station, including the use of state-of-the-art air pollution control technologies and strict emission limits. The article highlights the air modeling results and the consideration of public comments during the permit review process.

tmckee
Download Presentation

Proposed Article 6 Permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Buckingham Compressor Station

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Article 6 Permit for theAtlantic Coast PipelineBuckingham Compressor Station Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board MeetingJanuary 8, 2019 Michael Dowd, DirectorAir and Renewable Energy Division

  2. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS DEQ’S MOST IMPORTANT GOAL ALL Virginia air permits require: • State-of-the-art air pollution control • Assurance that the facility will not cause any violation of health-based air quality standards • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • State air toxics standards

  3. PROPOSED BUCKINGHAM COMPRESSOR STATION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS • Known as Best Available Control Technology,or “BACT” • Emission limits are lowest for natural gas compressor turbines • Selective Catalytic Reduction to control NOx • Permit has most stringent limits on venting of natural gas at a compressor station • Vent Gas Recirculation System to control VOCs and methane • This permit would set the national standard of stringency that other new major sources and compressor stations would have to meet across the country

  4. AIR MODELING • Computer modeling completed using the worst case scenario for each pollutant show • The Buckingham Compressor Station’s emissions will not violateof anyEPA health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). • The emissions will not violate state air toxics standardsfor formaldehyde or hexane.

  5. PUBLIC COMMENT • Public Comment Period Started August 8, 2018 • Public Hearing Conducted September 11, 2018 • 191 persons attended • Oral comments received from 60 individuals • Public Comments Considered until September 21, 2018 • Over 5,300 Written Comments Received • Various elected officials • Dominion • Various Environmental Groups – Southern Environmental Law Center, Appalachian Voices, Natural Resource Defense Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, etc.

  6. BOARD MEETINGS • November 8, 2018 • Oral comment from individuals who submitted written comments during August-September public comment period • November 9, 2018 • Presentation from applicant • Presentation from DEQ staff on proposed permit, summary of public comments and response to public comments • Deferred decision on proposed permit and asked DEQ for additional information on site suitability and demographics

  7. BOARD MEETINGS • December 19, 2018 • DEQ staff presented on site suitability, demographics, environmental justice and amendments to proposed permit • Amendments adopted to strengthen proposed permit • Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) on turbines for nitrogen oxides (NOx) • Emissions monitoring for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) • Ambient monitoring for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM 2.5, and VOCs • No final action taken to issue or deny the permit • Additional minimum comment period requested on site suitability and demographic documents provided to board prior to meeting • Public comment period held December 21, 2018 thru January 4, 2019 • January 8, 2019

  8. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD (page 1) The staff recommends thatbased on (1) the Board book material that contains a memorandum to the Board, a clean copy of the draft permit, a track change copy of the draft final permit, the permit engineering analysis, the air quality analyses review, a list of commenters and a sampling of all written comments received; and a summary of and response to public comments; (2) the public comments made available to the Board; (3) the agency files on the draft permit, including the application for a permit;

  9. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD (page 2) (4) public comments made at the Board meeting; (5) the staff presentations; (6)the additional documents and public comments submitted to the Board on the documents from December 21, 2018 through January 4, 2019; and (7) Board discussions; and based on consideration of the reasonableness of the activity involved and the regulations proposed to control it pursuant to § 10.1-1307E,

  10. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD (page 3) 1. The Board find that: a) the permit has been prepared in conformance with all applicable statutes, regulations and agency practices; b) the limits and conditions in the permit have been established to protect public health and the environment; and c) all public comments relevant to the permit have been considered;

  11. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD (page 4) 2. approve the permit and conditions as presented at the November 9, 2018 meeting with the additional amendments approved by the Board at the December 19, 2018 meeting that comply with applicable laws and regulations as they further respond to public concerns and have been agreed to by the applicant; and 3. authorize the Director to issue the permit as approved by the Board. The staff further recommends that the Board incorporate the above-referenced memorandum, permit engineering analysis, and response to comments into its decision to approve the permit.

More Related