www.hunton.com new coal-based power plant permitting kevin j. finto hunton & williams appa new...
TRANSCRIPT
www.hunton.com
NEW COAL-BASED POWER PLANT PERMITTING
Kevin J. FintoHunton & Williams
APPANew Generation: Emerging Technologies and Financing
San Antonio, TexasFebruary 17-18, 2005
www.hunton.com
1. Why Are We Interested in Permitting Coal-Fired Power Plants?
2. The Permitting Process3. Permitting for a New Unit at an Existing Plant4. Permitting New Facilities5. Key Points6. Procedural
a. Pre-Application Processesb. Coordinating with Federal and State Agenciesc. Endangered Species Act Issuesd. Public Participation Process
OVERVIEWOVERVIEW
www.hunton.com
7. Substantive Issues
a. Defining the Sourceb. BACTc. MACTd. Enforceabilitye. Air Quality Modeling Issues
www.hunton.com
WHY WE ARE INTERESTED IN WHY WE ARE INTERESTED IN COAL-FIRED GENERATION COAL-FIRED GENERATION Percentage Electrical Generation by Fuel Type*
Gas/Oil 18.8 %Nuclear 19.7 %Renewables 10.7 %Coal 50.8 %
* Statistics from EEI.org
Trends in Fossil Fuel Costs**2002 2005
Gas 2.95 6.04 $/mmBtuOil 24.45 48.25 $/barrelCoal 25.52 36.38 $/ton (Illinois basin)
** www.eia.doe.gov Current as of 2/14/05
www.hunton.com
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUESPUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
Local: Land use and siting issuesLocal Support
National: CAA and other environmental permitting and regulatory issues
National security
International: Carbon regulation
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (9/16/04):“In general, our long-term objective is to make sure that coal-fired plants get closed. Eventually, with enough attacks against coal-fired plants, there will be action to shut them down.”
www.hunton.com
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUESPUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
Develop public interest support Low cost energy is vital to public health
and welfare especially for low and fixed income citizens ( Klein Keeney report)
Low cost energy from coal is vital to economy and national security (National Coal Council: Opportunity to Expedite the Construction of New Coal-based Power Plants.
www.hunton.com
THE PERMITTING PROCESSTHE PERMITTING PROCESS
Pre-permitting activities• Site analysis• Community relations• Preparation of application
The permit proceeding
• Building the record
• Avoiding delays
Permit appeals
Construction
Operation
www.hunton.com
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUESSUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
“Traditional” new source permitting issues Air quality analysis BACT/LAER analyses Air quality-related values and the FLM State Air Toxics Rules
“New” issues Defining the source: IGCC/CFB/PC as BACT/LAER? Endangered species review MACT and mercury Anticipating NSR modification analyses Clear Skies, CAIR, NSPS and other new
requirements/regulatory regimes
www.hunton.com
PERMITTING PROCESSPERMITTING PROCESS
Optimizing a Plant and Permit Given the Constraints Imposed. Constraints
The Law (BACT/MACT/LAER, Air Quality Requirements, Others)
Fuel Characteristics Site Characteristics Economics Public Policy Opposition
Need to Provide Certainty of the Goal and Flexibility in Achieving It. Need to preserve options
www.hunton.com
Options for Avoiding NSR
Permitting for New Unit at Permitting for New Unit at Existing PlantExisting Plant
Netting Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs) These options may be available for some,
but not all regulated pollutants
www.hunton.com
NettingNetting
means the amount by which the sum of the following exceeds zero:
(a) Any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical change … at a stationary source; and
(b) Any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the source that are
“contemporaneous” and “otherwise creditable”
§52.21(b)(3)(i) – Net emissions increase
www.hunton.com
NettingNetting
Contemporaneous period: 5 years under federal rules States may adopt different periods
Decreases creditable only to the extent: Ambient impacts are the same Lower of old actual or allowable emissions
exceeds new level of actual emissions Enforceable Quantifiable
www.hunton.com
PAL DefinitionPAL Definition
An emission limitation expressed in tons per year, for a pollutant at a major stationary source, that is enforceable as a practical matter and established source-wide in accordance with EPA’s PAL rules.
www.hunton.com
Effect of a PALEffect of a PAL
If you have a PAL, you can make emission changes (including alterations to existing emissions units and the addition of new emissions units) without triggering new source review.
www.hunton.com
Establishing a PALEstablishing a PAL
Must apply for a PAL Application must list all emissions units, their
size, all federal and state requirements applicable to each emissions unit, and baseline actual emissions for each emissions unit
PAL must be established in a federally enforceable permit
Reviewing authority must provide opportunity for public participation, including a comment period and the opportunity for a public hearing on the PAL
www.hunton.com
Determining the PAL LevelDetermining the PAL Level
For each covered pollutant, baseline actual emissions are added to an amount equal to the applicable significance level per PAL pollutant.
Determine baseline actual emissions using the same 24-month period for all units.
Applicant may use allowable emissions for any emissions unit added to the facility after the selected 24-month period, but must subtract emissions from units permanently shutdown.
www.hunton.com
Determining the PAL LevelDetermining the PAL Level
Baseline actual emissions cannot exceed emission limit allowed by current permits or applicable rules (e.g., NSPS, RACT)
Set pollutant by pollutant Can cover one or more pollutants Expressed as TPY per pollutant
www.hunton.com
Term of PALTerm of PAL
The term of a PAL is 10 years. Between 6 and 18 months prior to expiration
of a PAL, permit holder must apply either to request renewal or expiration of the PAL
www.hunton.com
When a PAL ExpiresWhen a PAL Expires
Once a PAL expires, physical and operational changes are no longer evaluated under the PAL applicability provisions.
Source owner must comply with any applicable federal or requirement for a specific emissions unit (e.g., BACT, RACT, NSPS).
Limits eliminated by a PAL (e.g., 52.21(r) limits) do not return upon PAL expiration.
www.hunton.com
PAL PAL RenewalRenewal
A source owner applying to renew a PAL must recalculate the maximum PAL level, taking into account newly applicable requirements.
The new PAL level may not exceed the source’s PTE.
www.hunton.com
PAL RenewalPAL Renewal
The permitting authority may renew a source’s PAL at the original PAL level without consideration of other factors if the sum of the baseline actual emissions for emissions units at the source (plus significance levels) is equal to or greater than 80% of the original PAL level.
“Use it or lose it”
www.hunton.com
PAL RenewalPAL Renewal
If the recalculated baseline plus significance level value is less than 80% of the original PAL level, the permitting authority may set the PAL at a level that it believes is appropriate, taking into account air quality needs, advances in control technology, anticipated economic growth in the area, and other factors identified by the authority.
www.hunton.com
Monitoring in PAL Permits Monitoring in PAL Permits
Each permit must contain enforceable requirements that accurately determine plantwide emissions on a rolling 12-month basis.
www.hunton.com
5 years from date most records are made Term of PAL plus 5 years for the PAL
permit application and certifications of compliance
Recordkeeping in PAL Permits Recordkeeping in PAL Permits
www.hunton.com
Semi-annual reporting is required. Reports are to list all deviations or
monitoring malfunctions. Each such report is to be signed by the
responsible official who certifies the accuracy of the report
Reporting in PAL Permits Reporting in PAL Permits
www.hunton.com
The Permitting ProcessThe Permitting Process
Key Points Think Backwards – “What Do I Need on Appeal?” Anticipate Issues and Provide Solutions in the
Record Keep the Momentum Moving Forward Understand What is Required Versus What is
Desired – FLAG and Draft NSR Manual Are Not Law
Join the Network – But Watch Out for the Folklore Use Caution and Maintain Credibility
www.hunton.com
Preparing For The Permit Preparing For The Permit ChallengeChallenge
Plan Ahead – Build the Record Know the Process and Standard of Review
“Open” or “Closed” Record? When Does the Record Close? De Novo or Deference? Burden of Proof Choose your experts accordingly
Don’t Rely on Agency to Build a Good Record – Be Proactive
Examples
www.hunton.com
Collecting Necessary InformationCollecting Necessary Information
Much of the Information Needed for a Permit is Available in the Public Domain
Examples Include: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Meteorological Data Source Inventories Monitoring Information Technology Databases
Think About Why the Information Was Collected Quality Assurance/Quality Control Issues Remember That Many of the Permit Analyses
Are Case-by-Case
www.hunton.com
Meet With The AgenciesMeet With The Agencies
Pre-Application Meetings Site Visits Determine the Level of Expertise in BACT/MACT,
Modeling and Other Areas Be Prepared to Educate and Supplement
Resources Identify Particular Concerns Establish a Long-Term Working Relationship –
You Can’t Do This in a Vacuum and Neither Can the Agency
www.hunton.com
Preparing the Permit ApplicationPreparing the Permit Application
Tell Your Story –Why is this project “optimum” and in the public interest
Be Objective Tell What You Did and Why Tell What You Didn’t Do and Why Not Look for Checklists Include the Backup Information Be Prepared for an Iterative Process
www.hunton.com
Coordinating With Federal and Coordinating With Federal and State AgenciesState Agencies
PSD Does Not Trigger NEPA PSD Regulations Do Require Coordination With
Other Agencies in Their Compliance with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(s)
State Public Service Corporation Review
(economic development and increment) Army Corps of Engineers Review State Regulation (e.g., air toxics, little NEPAs,
State ESA) ESA Issues
www.hunton.com
WHY THE ESA MATTERSWHY THE ESA MATTERS
Recent decisions and activities have triggered ESA review in the context of air permitting for power plants
EPA has determined that PSD permitting by delegated state is “federal action” triggering Section 7 of ESA
Sierra Club has filed notices of citizen suits against EPA for failure to consider ESA in Title V permit review
www.hunton.com
WHY THE ESA MATTERSWHY THE ESA MATTERS
ESA consultation process = Delay $ Project Design or Operation Changes Uncertainty
FWS Can be Aggressive(especially if they coordinate on visibility and ESA issues)
Environmental Groups Aware of ESA’s Power to Delay and Change a Project
www.hunton.com
ESA BASICS–CONSULTATION ESA BASICS–CONSULTATION
Endangered Species / “Critical Habitat”
+ Discretionary Federal Action (permitting or
funding) Affecting Species or Habitat
= Requirement to Consult with Fish &
Wildlife Service
www.hunton.com
EXIT RAMPSEXIT RAMPS
No federal action No discretionary authority affecting species or habitat Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment / ECO
Risk Software No Effect – Convince State (if involved) and Federal
Agencies that Permitting the Plant Will Have No Effect on Endangered Species and “Critical Habitat”
Not Likely to Adversely Affect and FWS Concurrence Informal Consultation (Biological Assessment) Formal Consultation (Biological Opinion/Incidental
Take Statement)
www.hunton.com
ESA BASICS-TAKEESA BASICS-TAKE
Prohibition on “Take” “Take” broadly defined to include:
Harm Adverse modification of habitat
Prohibition applies with or without Federal action and consultation
Take requires “Incidental Take Permit” Unpermitted take = liability Examples; Wind energy; air emissions
www.hunton.com
ASSESSING ESA CONCERNSASSESSING ESA CONCERNS
Potential causes of impacts Plant site Area of impact
Air emissions Water intake and discharge
Associated facilities Mine site Transmission lines Roads Off-site construction area
Consider Migratory versus Local Species
www.hunton.com
OTHER LAWS OF CONCERNOTHER LAWS OF CONCERN
State Endangered Species Laws
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
www.hunton.com
Public Participation ProcessPublic Participation Process
Build a Record So That the Public Can Follow It
Work With the Agency to Ensure Compliance with Public Participation Requirements, Especially Public Notice
File Your Own Responses to Comments Work With Permitting Agency to Ensure
Well Documented Permit Package Commence Construction / Get an
extension (keep the permit alive)
www.hunton.com
Substantive Issues
www.hunton.com
Defining the SourceDefining the Source
Case-by-Case Analysis Operational Limits of the “Source”
Tail Wagging the Dog Problem Common ownership Contiguous Same SIC Code
Restrictions on Construction (e.g., Retrofit) Restrictions on Operation (e.g., Type of Fuel) Type of Combustion
www.hunton.com
BACT/MACT
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
What is BACT? (It’s a limit)Best Available Control Technology means an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the maximum degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under Act which would be emitted from any proposed major stationary source or major modification which the Administrator, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such source or modification through application of production processes or available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of such pollutant. . . .
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
( No, it’s a work practice)If the Administrator determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular emissions unit would make the imposition of an emissions standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, may be prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement for application of best available control technology. Such standard shall, to the degree possible, set forth the emissions reduction achievable by implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and shall provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results.
40 C.F.R. § 52.21(12)
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
BACT is an Emission Limit or Work Practice BACT is a Case-by-Case Analysis What is “Achievable” What is “Available” BACT Does Not Redefine the Source BACT is Done on a Pollutant-by-Pollutant Basis BACT Considers Multi-Pollutant Effects BACT Considers Environmental, Energy and
Economic Costs
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
Information That Must Be Considered Other Permits RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse Draft or Proposed Permits Permit Applications NSPS Proposal February 9, 2005
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
Other sources CEMs Data Source Tests Foreign Experience Vendor Guarantees Vendor Literature
www.hunton.com
Best Available Control Best Available Control TechnologyTechnology
BACT is not the lowest level ever recorded Need for a Cushion What Can Be Achieved Under Worst-Case,
Reasonably Foreseeable Circumstances Not the Best Day or the Average Day Long term achievability
www.hunton.com
IGCC as BACTIGCC as BACT
“Defining the Source” Greg Foote white paper ED Memorandum to Utah DEQ View of states/EPA HQ NESCAUM briefs in several proceedings We Energy Practical advice
www.hunton.com
MACTMACT
NSPS Proposed Rule February 10, 2005 Proposed Rule – January 30, 2004 Supplemental Notice – March 16, 2004 Much Concern Over Feasibility of Proposed
Limits Preambles Offer Some Insights Case-by-Case MACT
What is Demonstrated in Practice MACT Floor
Rule Due on March 15, 2005 Lot’s of possibilities.
www.hunton.com
www.hunton.com
Enforceability
www.hunton.com
New Source New Source Permitting ScenariosPermitting Scenarios
Preconstruction permitting only Title V permit application within 12 months
after start-up (unless state requires earlier) Parallel processing (state requires
submission of Title V application earlier but processes separately)
www.hunton.com
New Source New Source Permitting ScenariosPermitting Scenarios
Combined preconstruction/Title V permitting program If state has adequate authority and NSR
programs uses “enhanced procedures” that are substantially equivalent to Title V
Could result in greater involvement of EPA and public in PSD permitting (because of veto authority and petition process)
www.hunton.com
Historical View of Historical View of Practical EnforceabilityPractical Enforceability
To be “practically enforceable,” preconstruction permitting requirements must contain A clearly defined emission limit and identify the
portion of source to which it applies A time period, e.g., 24-hours, daily, monthly,
annually Consistent with the substantive requirement Consistent with the compliance method
A clearly defined compliance method, including monitoring recordkeeping and reporting
www.hunton.com
Title V MonitoringTitle V Monitoring
Title V added “Periodic Monitoring” Applies if underlying requirement imposes
no requirement for ongoing testing (e.g., only startup performance tests)
Must specify a frequency for additional testing
No separate “sufficiency monitoring” requirement (Jan. 2004 EPA rule)
www.hunton.com
Compliance Assurance Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)Monitoring (CAM) “Enhanced monitoring” implemented through
Title V CAM applies to emission limit if:
An active control device is needed to meet limit There is no “continuous compliance method” (e.g., CEMS)
CAM Plan must include Control device indicators to be monitored Acceptable operating ranges (or process for developing
ranges or trigger levels) Necessary when CAM applies during preconstruction permitting Must include a schedule for testing
Monitor performance criteria
www.hunton.com
Compliance Assurance Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)Monitoring (CAM)
Permit will include enforceable obligation to investigate and take corrective action
Must submit CAM Plan with Title V permit application
www.hunton.com
Then and NowThen and Now
Historically, monitoring and testing in preconstruction permits has ranged from AP-42, to startup performance test, to CEMS
Title V adds A minimum frequency of testing after startup CAM as indicator monitoring for some emission
limits Increasingly, citizen groups and agencies
insisting on continuous monitoring at preconstruction stage
Preference for CEMS Enforceable operating parameters where CEMS
not available
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
Most issues are with PM and HAPS (SO2, NOx, CO CEMS well proven in coal-fired application)
Particulate matter (PM) PM CEMS
EPA finalized Performance Specification (PS 11) and quality assurance/quality control (Procedure 2) in January 2004
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, and Portland Cement Association have challenged
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
PM CEMS Technical issues
Technology requires “calibration” to Method 5, calibration curves can change
Single point monitoring not account for stratification
EPA statistics allows data with significant error band to pass
Existing BACT/LAER standards not based on PM CEMS data
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
PM CEMS Applications to PSD permits
Region 8 has commented to state that PM CEMS should be required for new source (headquarters says not national policy)
Two states have issued PSD permit with PM CEMS requirement
Anticipate this will be an issue in most new coal-fired source permits
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
PM CEMS Defenses
PS 11 preamble states that PM CEMS apply when required by rulemaking and that additional industry-specific operational requirements may be required (NSPS)
PM CEMS Technical documents acknowledge need to establish limit with PM CEMS data
PM CAM Plan Difficult and complex because stack emissions are
affected by multiple control technologies May need to propose multiple options and collect
test data prior to finalizing
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
Hg Hg CEMS and Method 324 (Sorbent Trap)
No performance standard or QA/QC promulgated Proposed standards never been achieved in practice EPA/EPRI research project to install and test Hg CEMS and
Method 324 ability to meet proposed standards underway Will become issue in permits once EPA issues final utility
mercury rule
Hg CAM Plans CAM exempts standards proposed under § 112 after 1990 EPA position in Utility Hg proposals that CAM not sufficient
for MACT
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
AP-42 EPA initiative questioning use of emission
factors for establishing compliance Condensible Particulate Matter
PM –10 (the regulated pollutant) is defined to include filterable and condensible PM
EPA Method 202 for condensable has positive artifact (overstates PM)
www.hunton.com
Implementation IssuesImplementation Issues
Condensable Particulate Matter Establishment of appropriate limit will be
issue Little data exists on achievable PM-10
limits that include condensable Seek higher limit to account for Method
202 results or seek separate limits on individual identifiable condensable (sulfuric acid mist)
www.hunton.com
Air Quality Modeling Issues
www.hunton.com
Modeling RequiredModeling Required
In all cases, a permit applicant must show that a major new source will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of— Any applicable PSD increment, or A National Ambient Air Quality Standard
“in any air quality control region” An applicant must also analyze the impact
of the facility and associated growth on visibility, soils and vegetation with commercial or recreational value
www.hunton.com
Modeling RequiredModeling Required
For Class I areas, must also address “air quality-related values,” including visibility (AQRVs)
No permit can be issued if a Federal Land Manager (FLM) demonstrates to the permitting state that emissions from a proposed facility will have an adverse impact on AQRVs
www.hunton.com
Selected Relevant Regulations Selected Relevant Regulations
40 C.F.R. § 51.166(c), (k), (l), (o), & (p)
40 C.F.R. § 51.307
40 C.F.R. Part 51, App. W
40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(29), (c), (k), (l), (o), & (p)
www.hunton.com
Selected Relevant GuidanceSelected Relevant Guidance
New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting (Oct. 1990 Draft)
Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (December 2000)
Guidance on Deposition Analysis Thresholds (2002) (From the National Park Service & the Fish & Wildlife Service)
Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts (Dec. 1998)
www.hunton.com
Models to UseModels to Use
For NAAQS and increment analyses, generally must follow the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 C.F.R. Appendix W)
ISC-3 for most applications CALPUFF for distances greater than 50 km General practice has been to use ISC-3 for non-
Class I modeling and to set the SIA at 50 km CALPUFF is also recommended by the Federal
Land Managers for AQRV analyses
www.hunton.com
Models to UseModels to Use
If the model specified by the Guideline is “inappropriate,” it can be modified or another model specified On a case-by-case or state-wide basis Requires written approval by the
Administrator Requires an opportunity for notice and
comment
www.hunton.com
NAAQS & Increment AnalysesNAAQS & Increment Analyses
Getting Started Protocol
Address all aspects of the modeling Get it approved
Preliminary modeling Determine if exceed thresholds so preconstruction
monitoring and refined modeling is required Determine the SIAs for refined modeling Need to know if a short-term limit (3-hr or 24-hr) for SO2
will be required as it will affect the SIA
www.hunton.com
NAAQS & Increment AnalysesNAAQS & Increment Analyses
Preconstruction monitoring If request approval to use existing data
remember to include ozone Refined modeling
Grid should identify highest impacts Annual – maximum annual mean Short-term – high-second-high
www.hunton.com
NAAQS & Increment AnalysesNAAQS & Increment Analyses
Adequacy of inventory can be a concern NAAQS and Increment inventories are not the
same NAAQS – all sources modeled using their potential emissions Increment – sources modeled depend on whether minor
source baseline has been triggered and can use actual emissions based on two years of data
Violations may be modeled in attainment areas Culpability analysis required to determine if
causing or contributing to the modeled violation
www.hunton.com
NAAQS & Increment AnalysesNAAQS & Increment Analyses
Other issues Methods to model ozone or PM2.5 from a
single source must be selected on a case-by-case basis
Typically single-source ozone modeling not required but look for regional modeling to include in the record
8-hr Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS have yet to be fully implemented
Currently there are no increments for ozone or PM2.5
www.hunton.com
Adverse Impact – Per FLMsAdverse Impact – Per FLMs
“An unacceptable effect, as identified by an FLM, that results from current, or would result from predicted, deterioration of air quality in a Federal Class I or Class II area. A determination of unacceptable effect shall be made on a case-by-case basis for each area taking into account existing air quality conditions. It should be based on a demonstration that the current or predicted deterioration of air quality will cause or contribute to a diminishment of the area’s national significance, impairment of the structure and functioning of the area’s ecosystem, or impairment of the quality of the visitor experience in the area.”
www.hunton.com
AQRV Analysis -VisibilityAQRV Analysis -Visibility
Visibility Impairment – “[A]ny humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.”
Significant Impairment – “[V]isibility impairment which, in the judgment of the Administrator, interferes with the management, protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the visitor’s visual experience.”
www.hunton.com
AQRV Analysis - VisibilityAQRV Analysis - Visibility
Case-by-case analysis, taking into account Geographic extent of impairment Duration of impairment Frequency of impairment Time of impairment Correlation with times of visitor use Frequency and timing of natural conditions
that impair visibility
www.hunton.com
Visibility Impairment - FLMsVisibility Impairment - FLMs
Use the CALPUFF model to conduct a single-source contribution analysis MESOPUFF II chemistry option Use hourly relative humidity Use default ammonia background levels Using the maximum predicted 24-hr values
for SO4, NO3, and HNO3, calculate extinction coefficients for each pollutant
www.hunton.com
Visibility Impairment - FLMsVisibility Impairment - FLMs
Compare to natural conditions FLMs want a comparison to clean
background visibility Generally compare to the average 24-hour
extinction values for the 20% cleanest conditions from the IMPROVE monitoring network
www.hunton.com
Visibility Impairment- FLMsVisibility Impairment- FLMs
If the estimated single-source contribution to impairment is <0.4% each day, the FLM will not object or require further analysis.
If the estimated single-source contribution to impairment is 10% on any day, the FLM is likely to object to the permit
If, as is usually the case, no cumulative impact analysis exists and the source’s contribution to extinction is <5.0% on all days, the FLM will likely not object to the permit
www.hunton.com
Visibility Impairment -FLMsVisibility Impairment -FLMs
In other situations, the FLM may ask for a cumulative analysis If cumulative extinction is 10% and the
source contributes at least a 0.4% change in any period, the FLM will likely object to the permit
If the cumulative extinction is always <10%, the FLM is not likely to object to the permit
www.hunton.com
Visibility Impairment - IssuesVisibility Impairment - Issues
Limits of human perception Consideration of weather Consideration of time of day Characterization of natural background Elevation effects Time of day Treatment of background ammonia
www.hunton.com
Deposition Impacts - FLMsDeposition Impacts - FLMs
Deposition Analysis Thresholds have been established by the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service In the East - 0.01 kg/ha/yr N or S In the West 0.005 kg/ha/yr N or S
These may not be used by the Forest Service
www.hunton.com
Deposition Impacts - FLMsDeposition Impacts - FLMs
A deposition impact analysis may be requested Estimate the current S and N deposition
rates at the Class I area Estimate future deposition rates Compare to screening criteria for the area
Critical loads Concern thresholds Screening level values
Exceedence may trigger a permit objection
www.hunton.com
Ozone Impacts - FLMsOzone Impacts - FLMs
Focus is on vegetation All native species are to be protected Most sensitive species may not be known
Focus is on NOx unless an area is shown to be VOC-limited
If current ozone exposure is considered phytotoxic or damage to vegetation is seen, the FLM may seek “stricter than BACT” controls or offsets
www.hunton.com
Additional Impact AnalysisAdditional Impact Analysis
Comparison to NAAQS may not be sufficient
Permitting agencies requesting analysis of heavy metals
May need to consider ambient background Guidance is available
A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals, EPA 450/2-81-078 (Dec. 12, 1980)