CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 24, 2015
TO:
Permit review file for permit no. 14-SDD-205 (SDD 8/24/15)
FROM:
Steve Dunn – AM/7
State of Wisconsin
SUBJECT: Response to Comments for Permit no. 14-SDD-205 for the We Energies Oak Creek facility
(FID# 241007690)
Comments on draft permit no. 14-SDD-205 for WE energies (WE) Oak Creek were received from
USEPA, WE, Clean Wisconsin, public hearing commenters and from email commenters. There were 12
persons providing public comments at the hearing and approximately 100 email comments have been
received.
The comments, source of those comments and comment responses are presented below
A. EPA
1. Comment: EPA believes that a wind barrier should be included as a component of BACT for the
proposed project. Response: The Department is including in the final permit the requirement to
construct an effective wind barrier for both the north and south coal piles. In addition, the permit is
requiring the application of a crusting agent to the inactive portions of the south coal pile once the north
coal pile is constructed and active. The permittee anticipates using the south pile for long term storage
and the north pile for more short term storage of coal. Thus, the use of the crusting agent will be required
on the south pile only. In addition, the Department is requiring the permittee to further study the use of
additional wind breaks as part of an updated fugitive dust control plan. The results of this study will
determine if additional measures are feasible for the site.
2. Comment: EPA suggests that the Department include a 0% opacity limitation at the facility fence line.
Response: The coal piles are not located near the facility fence line. Thus, the Department believes it is
very unlikely that any opacity would be seen at the facility fence line. However, in response to this and
other comments requesting better control of coal dust emissions, the Department is lowering the allowed
opacity on the coal pile or due to coal pile activities to 7.5% from the proposed 10% opacity requirement.
The Department believes that this lower opacity limitation will be protective of any off site opacity issues.
Additionally, the Department believes that an onsite opacity limitation is practicably enforceable through
monitoring and observation, while an offsite limitation for such a large facility would be difficult to
enforce as a practical matter or for the facility to provide a sufficient compliance demonstration on an
ongoing basis.
3. Comment: EPA intends to request a copy of the initial (revised) fugitive dust plan from WE Energies
when it is available. EPA may seek to coordinate its review of the plan with the Department. Response:
No response required.
B. Summary of public hearing comments and Department responses:
1. Comment: Dust from the existing coal pile is not adequately controlled so it does not make sense to
allow the coal pile to be more than doubled in size. Response: The Wisconsin Statutes require the
Department to issue an air pollution control construction permit to any applicant if the Department makes
the following findings (see ss. 285.63(1)&(3), Wis. Stats.)1:
-
The source will meet all applicable emission limitations other requirements
The source will not violate or exacerbate the violation of an air quality standard or ambient air
increment
- The source is subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for each applicable air
contaminant
Based on the Department’s analysis in the Preliminary Determination, the Department has concluded that
all of these criteria are met and the permit should be issued.
In response to concerns about coal dust, the Department has made changes to the draft permit to enhance
control of fugitive dust (coal dust) emissions from the coal piles. These measures include: video
monitoring of the coal piles, reduced opacity limitation for the coal piles, improved wind break for the
coal piles and the use of crusting agents on the inactive portions of the south coal pile. The Department
believes that all of these measures, in addition to possible additional measures required to be evaluated
under the permit, will lead to improved control of coal dust emissions from the facility.
2. Comment: More dust control measures need to be put in place to assure that coal dust from outside
storage does not become airborne. Response: Please see response to comment B.1. concerning the
additional measures the Department will be requiring under this permit.
3. Comment: People near the facility state that coal dust emissions have contributed to respiratory
infections, skin diseases and higher than normal cancer incidence. Response: Coal dust consists of
various sizes of particulate matter containing minerals, such as quartz (some of it is crystalline silica),
metals and organic compounds. Some of the constituents in coal (and coal dust) have been associated
with respiratory illnesses as well as other health effects.
The lung is the most widely studied target of coal dust exposure. It is the respirable particles – those
particles that are less than 4 microns (4 millionths of a meter) that are thought to be the major concern.
Wind-blown coal particles (fugitive dust) from outdoor storage piles typically consist of much larger
particles than 10 microns. Therefore, fugitive coal dusts would not constitute a major exposure to nearby
populations.
The dust control measures that will be employed by the facility are meant to control dusts and that would
also reduce exposures to the respirable sized particulate matter of most concern. As mentioned in the
response to comment B.1., these measures are being enhanced as part of this permit approval.
4. Comment: Coal dust from the facility has carried off site and has caused noticeable soiling of the
ground at nearby residences and coated siding on residential properties. Response: The Department has
not received any complaints concerning fugitive coal dust or coal deposition on off plant property in the
past two years. The Department did discuss this issue with WE Energies and they stated that there have
been 4-5 confirmed incidents of offsite coal found on residential properties in 2014 and 2015. In the final
1
This is not the entire list of criteria from these statutory requirements. However, it is a list of
the relevant requirements.
permit, WE will be required to keep records of any complaints concerning offsite coal dust that the
facility receives. This includes any follow-up actions taken in response to the complaint.
The Department is requiring enhanced coal dust emissions controls in the final permit. The Department
believes that when these measures are fully implemented that coal dust emissions will be reduced from
the facility.
5. Comment: Train operations cause loud noise during the plant and trains are often left idling for long
periods causing noise and air pollution. Response: The Department does not have the authority to
regulate noise or emissions from mobile sources such as trains. Thus, no provisions concerning these
activities are included in the final permit.
6. Comment: Video of coal dust blowing off coal piles at the facility were submitted to show the level of
problem with coal dust from the facility. Response: The Department is requiring enhanced coal dust
emission controls in the final permit. The Department believes that when these measures are fully
implemented that coal dust emissions will be reduced from the facility.
C. Clean WI comments (provided in writing and at the public hearing)
1. Comment: Before approving an operating permit revision for the Oak Creek plant, DNR must
investigate existing violations of fugitive dust regulations at the facility, and must incorporate a
compliance schedule for these violations into the permit. Response: As of the date of this response, the
Department has not found or alleged any violations of any applicable requirement for the Oak Creek
plant. Additionally, the Department will only be issuing a construction permit to the facility for the coal
expansion project at this time and the construction permit regulations do not allow for compliance
schedules. When an operation permit is issued for this project, the Department will consider this
comment and determine if a compliance schedule is needed as part of that permitting action.
2. Comment: The DNR must complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
Response: The Department is proposing to issue a construction permit under s. 285.61, Wis. Stats.
Under s. 150.20(2)(a)4., Wis. Adm. Code (emergency rule May 2015), issuance of a major source
construction permit under ch. NR 405 is considered an equivalent analysis action. Procedures that are
part of the PSD permit application and review consider additional environmental impacts and provide an
opportunity for public review and comment. See, for example, Section J. of the Department’s July 12,
2015 analysis and preliminary determination for the 14-SDD-205 permit (“Preliminary Determination”).
The Department published its finding as part of the Preliminary Determination for the permit and made its
determination available as part of the July 14, 2015 public notice. Thus, the Department believes all
WEPA requirements have been met. In addition, the Department conducted a joint environmental analysis
with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW). The PSCW determined the action was a
Type 3 action pursuant to PSC 4, Wis. Adm. Code, and the Order dated June 17, 2015, considered
impacts to the forested area.
However, based on receiving comments on the need for an EIS, the Department is providing this
additional analysis for determining whether an EIS is needed for the proposed project.
S. NR 150.20(4)(b), Wis. Adm. Code, does allow the Department to consider whether an EIS may be
appropriate in light of eight specific factors. The factors are identified below along with the Department’s
analysis of said factors:
1. The project involves multiple department actions. Analysis: This project does involve approval from
the Air Management Program as well as wetlands, storm water and wastewater programs. Thus, the
approval of this project requires multiple Department actions. However, this is not unusual for this type
of utility project.
2. The project may be in conflict with local, state or federal environmental policies. Analysis: The
Department is unaware of any conflict with local, state or federal environmental policies for this proposed
project.
3. The project may set precedent for reducing or limiting environmental protection. Analysis: The
Department is unaware of any precedent being set for this project that reduces or limits environmental
protection.
4. The project may result in deleterious effects over large geographic areas. Analysis: The proposed
project is the expansion of a coal pile at an existing electric utility. The project does not involve the
expansion of the ability to combust coal or allow the use of a fuel for which the facility is not already
permitted. The Department sees no evidence that his project could have deleterious effects over a large
geographic area.
5. The project may result in long−term deleterious effects that are prohibitively difficult or expensive to
reverse. Analysis: The Department is unaware of a long term deleterious effects of this project. The
project has been analyzed and the facility, including this project, will meet all ambient air quality
standards. In addition, under the permit for the proposed project, emission limitations, monitoring and
emission controls are being improved compared to the pre-project facility. Thus, the Department
concludes that there are no long-term deleterious effects that are prohibitively difficult or expensive to
reverse.
6. The project may result in deleterious effects on especially important, critical, or sensitive
environmental resources. Analysis: The Department is unaware of any deleterious effects of this project
on especially important, critical, or sensitive environmental resources. The project has been analyzed and
the facility, including this project, will meet all ambient air quality standards. In addition, under the
permit for the proposed project, emission limitations, monitoring and emission controls are being
improved compared to the pre-project facility. Thus, the Department concludes that no deleterious effects
on especially important, critical or sensitive environmental resources are likely to occur as a result of this
project.
7. The project involves broad public controversy. Analysis: There has been public controversy
concerning the project. Numerous comments have been received from state citizens objecting to the
proposed projects, most from either neighbors residing near the We Energies Oak Creek facility or other
residents of southeast Wisconsin.
8. The project may result in substantial risk to human life, health, or safety. Analysis: The Department
is unaware of any substantial risk to human life, health, or safety as a result of this project. The project
has been analyzed and the facility, including this project, will meet all ambient air quality standards. In
addition, under the permit for the proposed project, emission limitations, monitoring and emission
controls are being improved compared to the pre-project facility. Thus, the Department concludes that no
substantial risk to human life, health, or safety is likely to occur as a result of this project.
This particular project is primarily driven by the previous approval (construction permit 12-SDD-047)
which allowed the use of subbituminous coal in power boilers B18 and B19 at the facility and by WE
Energies’ desire to increase coal storage capacity due to challenges with rail delivery of coal. The
magnitude and complexity of the current approval is less than the projects previously permitted under 12SDD-047. The Department did not perform an EIS for 12-SDD-047. Considering all of these factors as a
whole, especially the unlikelihood of any large area impact, deleterious impact on natural resources or
substantial risk to human health and safety, the Department has determined that an EIS is not necessary
for this project.
3. Comment: Prior to issuing a permit, the Department must require further analysis of additional control
as BACT for particulate matter emissions. These technologies include enclosure of the coal pile, wind
barrier technology and the use of crusting agents as BACT.
Response: Based on comments received, the Department has reexamined its original BACT
determination and made the following changes to the permit:
-
Requirement for continuous video monitoring of the coal piles
Requirement to use crusting agents on the inactive coal piles (south coal pile)
Requirement to construct a wind barrier for both coal piles
Reduced the allowed opacity from the coal pile to 7.5% from 10%
The Department has also maintained the items to be evaluated for their feasibility, including the use of
additional wind barriers, in the final permit.
While the use of an enclosure for the entire coal pile is mentioned by the commenter, no additional
information has been provided that would lead the Department to conclude that total enclosure of the coal
piles is a cost effective control option. The existing facility has an enclosed storage area which holds an
approximate 3-day supply of coal for the facility. Coal is unloaded into this storage area and this coal is
combusted preferentially in the boilers at the facility. Thus, the permit already requires that the majority
of coal handling operations to occur within an enclosed structure. Enclosing the entire 33.6 acres of coal
storage is not, in the Department’s judgment, a practical or feasible emissions control option. This
conclusion is supported by the Ohio permit application identified by the applicant. In this 2008 permit
application, the cost of enclosing an area approximately one-third as large as the proposed coal yard was
estimated to be $22,000,000. This is not a feasible control cost for BACT.
4. Comment: Further study should be required to determine a more concrete control efficiency of wet
dust suppression at Oak Creek. Response: The Department is requiring, as part of the BACT
requirements, that the use of improved watering of the coal pile be included in the updated fugitive dust
plan.
5. Comment: WE should install a Digital Compliance System to ensure compliance with the 10%
opacity standard. Response: The Department knows of no applications of this technology in the state or
in other similar BACT determinations. In lieu of requiring possible digital compliance with opacity
requirements, the Department is requiring continuous video monitoring of the coal piles and daily inperson monitoring for opacity. The Department believes this is sufficient to allow the Department to
evaluate compliance with the applicable opacity limitations.
6. Comment: Data on efficacy of the current fugitive dust plan at Oak Creek should be reported to the
DNR on a regular basis and available for public inspection. Response: The Department requires the
permittee to maintain records to demonstrate that the fugitive dust plan requirements have been met. In
addition, the Department requires a compliance certification be submitted every 6 months which includes
a requirement to identify any deviations from and violations of any applicable requirements. One of these
applicable requirements is to follow the requirements of the fugitive dust plan. These certifications are
public records than can be requested from the Department at any time.
D. Comments received by email:
1. Comment: Enact more stringent measures to control coal dust (see Clean WI comment response 3.)
2. Comment: Enclose the coal piles as this is used in other states and is feasible (see Clean WI comment
response 3.)
3. Comment: Complete an EIS for the project (see Clean WI comment response 2).
E. WE Energy comments:
1. Comment: WE requests that the permit expiration be 30 months after issuance in lieu of the 18
months after issuance in the draft permit. WE believes it will take at least 24 months to complete the
project and would like an additional 6 months to account for any possible delays. Response: The
Department has made this change in the final permit.
2. Comment: WE requests that wet dust suppression not be required to be applied to the coal path in the
transfer towers, dumper house, crusher house and process F34 (coal stackout drop). Response: This
change has been made in the final permit.
3. Comment: WE commented on wrong cross-references in the original permit. Response: These
changes, not impacting the stringency of the permit conditions, have been made in the final permit.