NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON DRAFT PERMIT FOR
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
REGULATING THE EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
(Docket No. 06-CA-PA-20)
Date of Public Hearing: December 19, 2006
Place: Kapolei High School Cafeteria
91-5007 Kapolei Parkway
Kapolei, Oahu
Facility Name: Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO)
Campbell Industrial Park Generating Station
Located at: UTM-592,526 Meters East and 2,356,666 Meters North,
Zone 4 (Old Hawaiian), Kapolei, Oahu
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 342B and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-60.1, the Department of Health (DOH), State of Hawaii, hereby gives notice of a public hearing that will be held to consider the following DRAFT PERMIT to be issued to Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., P.O. Box 2750, Honolulu, HI, 96840.
The DRAFT PERMIT is described as follows:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Covered Source Permit (CSP) No. 0548-01-C, in accordance with Federal PSD regulations, 40 CFR 52.21 and HAR, Chapter 11-60.1, Air Pollution Control, would grant conditional approval for the operation of Campbell Industrial Park (CIP) Generating Station. Two 135 MW simple cycle combustion turbine generators, CIP1 and CIP2, are proposed for the facility that are operated with a water injection system to control nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Naphtha or fuel oil No. 2 with maximum 0.05% by weight sulfur content are proposed as the primary fuels for the units to minimize sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions. The firing of fuel oil No. 2 with maximum 0.35% by weight sulfur content would be allowed if there is insufficient supply of the lower sulfur fuels or it is determined that the lower sulfur fuels are not economically feasible. The proposed facility includes two 1.5 MW black start diesel engine generators, BSG1 and BSG2, for starting the combustion turbine generators when the grid is unable to provide power. The combustion turbine generators are subject to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60 – New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), Subpart KKKK, Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines. Also, two tanks are proposed for storing fuel for the combustion turbine generators equipped with tank seal systems and internal floating roofs to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The tanks are subject to 40 CFR Part 60 NSPS, Subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after July 23, 1984. Maximum potential ton per year (TPY) emissions estimated from operating the proposed generating station are shown in the following table in comparison to the significant emission levels:
Significant
Potential Emissions (TPY) Emission
Total Emissions Level
Pollutant CIP1 and CIP2 a, b BSG1 & BSG2 Tanks 1 & 2 (TPY) (TPY)
CO 3,463.7 – 3,518.9 5.3 ———- 3,469.0 – 3,524.2 100
NOX 2,052.4 – 2,065.0 31.3 ———- 2,083.7 – 2,096.3 40
SO2 631.6 4,403.2 2.9 ———- 634.5 – 4,406.1 40
H2SO4 62.8 – 438.2 0.4 ———- 63.2 – 438.6 7
PM 692.6 – 730.0 0.3 ———- 692.9 -730.3 25
PM10 664.9 – 700.8 0.3 ———- 665.2 – 701.1 15
VOC 330.3 – 335.5 0.3 11.6 342.2 – 347.4 40
a: Lower TPY emissions from the range of those listed for CIP1 and CIP2 are based on manufacturers data for firing naphtha with maximum 0.05% by weight sulfur content.
b: Higher TPY emissions from the range of those listed for CIP1 and CIP2 are based on manufacturers data for firing fuel oil No. 2 with maximum 0.35% by weight sulfur content.
A preliminary air modeling analysis was conducted for pollutants exceeding significant emission levels. The preliminary model was conducted to determine: (1) whether or not preconstruction monitoring is required; (2) if further modeling from a full impact analysis is applicable; and (3) to define the impact area within which a full impact analysis must be performed. If the monitoring thresholds are exceeded, preconstruction monitoring is required for that pollutant and averaging period. If the modeling significant level is exceeded, a full impact analysis for that pollutant and averaging period is required.
Results from the preliminary modeling analysis in comparison to the ambient air monitoring thresholds determined that preconstruction monitoring was not required for SO 2, particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). Preconstruction monitoring for ozone (O3) was found to be applicable because potential VOC emissions from the generating station are above 100 TPY. For preconstruction monitoring of ozone, the Department concurred with the use of O3 concentrations measured at its Sand Island monitoring station to satisfy the preconstruction monitoring requirements. Results from the analysis are shown in the following table:
MAXIMUM IMPACTS AND AMBIENT AIR MONITORING THRESHOLDS
Averaging Maximum Impact Monitoring Level Percent
Pollutant Period (ug/m 3) (ug/m 3) Threshold
SO2 24 hour 11.6 13 89
PM 24 hour 2.40 10 24
PM10 24 hour 2.30 10 23
NO2 Annual 0.391 14 3
CO 8 hour 27.0 575 5
O3 see note a ——— see note a ———
a: No significant ambient impact concentration has been established. Instead, any net emissions increase of 100 tons per year of VOC requires an ambient impact analysis that includes pre-application monitoring data.
Results from the preliminary modeling analysis in comparison to the modeling significant levels for Class II areas determined that the maximum impacts were above the 3-hour and 24-hour significant impact levels for SO 2 and the 100 TPY threshold for VOCs. As such, a full impact analysis was performed for SO 2 for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods to determine compliance with the ambient air quality standards and PSD Class II increments. The full impact analysis for SO 2 expanded the preliminary analysis with further modeling that included additional emissions from existing CIP sources combined with CIP1, CIP2, BSG1, and BSG2. A screening technique was used to further evaluate VOC impacts.
The full impact analysis of SO 2 showed compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Impacts from HECOs Kahe Generating Station were added to impacts from the Campbell Industrial Park Generating station because the Kahe Generating Station was considered a source that may individually affect air impacts within the projects significant impact area. Results are shown in the following table:
MAXIMUM IMPACTS COMPARED TO STATE AND FEDERAL AIR STANDARDS
Maximum Impacts (µg/m 3) Air
Averaging Standard Percent
Pollutant Period aCIP Kahe Background Total (ug/m 3) Standard
SO2 3 hour 321 539 46 906 1,300 70
24 hour 78 139 15 232 365 64
a: Impacts are from operation of CIP1, CIP2, BSG1, and BSG2 combined with operation of existing CIP sources.
The full impact analysis of SO2 also indicated compliance with PSD Class II increments. Impacts from HECOs Kahe Generating Station were added to impacts from the Campbell Industrial Park Generating Station because the Kahe Generating Station, that is located west of the proposed project, was considered a source that may individually affect the amount of PSD increment consumed. Results from the analysis are shown in the following table:
MAXIMUM IMPACTS AND PSD CLASS II INCREMENTS
Maximum Impacts (µg/m 3) Class II
Averaging Increment Percent
Pollutant Period aCIP Kahe Total (ug/m 3) Increment
SO2 3 hour 321 109 430 512 84
24 hour 78 4 83 91 91
a: Impacts are from operation of CIP1, CIP2, BSG1, and BSG2 combined with operation of existing CIP sources.
The ambient air quality impact analysis for ozone using the Texas Commission on Environmental Qualitys 1-hour ozone screening technique found the site to be NOX dominated and there should not be a significant change to the current ozone levels in the local area from operation of the proposed Campbell Industrial Park Generating Station.
The ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, consisting of the APPLICATION and nonconfidential supporting materials from the applicant, the permit application review, and the DRAFT PERMIT, are available for public inspection during regular office hours, Monday through Friday 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., at the following location:
Oahu:
Clean Air Branch, Department of Health
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 203, Honolulu, Oahu 96814
Interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing to make comments and recommendations on the DRAFT PERMIT and the permit application review. Persons desiring to testify should submit two copies of their testimony prior to or at the hearing. In addition, written comments on the DRAFT PERMIT will be accepted if postmarked or received by December 26, 2006. Comments shall be delivered or mailed to the Clean Air Branch, Department of Health, 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 203, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814.
Interested persons may obtain copies of the administrative records or parts thereof by paying five cents per page copying costs. Please send written requests to the Oahu office of the CIean Air Branch listed above or call Mr. Michael Madsen at the Clean Air Branch in Honolulu at (808) 586-4200.
DOH can provide auxiliary aids or services (e.g., sign language interpreter, large print, accessible parking) if the above Oahu office of the Clean Air Branch receives such a written request ten days prior to the hearing.
Interested persons may submit written comments on the subject matter, application, the Department of Healths analysis and proposed actions, and other appropriate considerations. Comments on the DRAFT PERMIT should address, but need not be limited to, the permit conditions and the facilitys compliance with federal and state air pollution laws, including: (1) the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards; and (2) HRS, Chapter 342B and HAR, Chapter 11-60.1.
A final decision to set the conditions of and to issue the FINAL PERMIT, or to deny the application for the permit, shall be made after all comments pertaining to the DRAFT PERMIT and permit application review have been considered. Notice of the final decision shall be sent to each person who has submitted comments or requested such notice.
The decision on PSD/CSP No. 0548-01-C shall become effective thirty days from the date of issuance unless:
1. A later effective date is specified in the decision; or
2. The decision on the permit is appealed by filing a petition for review with the Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (Any person who filed comments on the DRAFT PERMIT or participated in the public hearing may, within thirty days after the decision has been issued, petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review any condition of the permit decision. Any person who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the public hearing on the DRAFT PERMIT may petition for administrative review only to the extent of the changes from the draft to the final permit decision.)
Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, M.D.
(SB05525722 11/17/06) Director of Health
