NEW COAL-BASED POWER PLANT PERMITTING

1

• NEW COAL-BASED POWER PLANT PERMITTING
• Kevin J. Finto
• Hunton Williams
• APPA
• New Generation Emerging Technologies and
  Financing
• San Antonio, Texas
• February 17-18, 2005

2
OVERVIEW

• Why Are We Interested in Permitting Coal-Fired
  Power Plants?
• The Permitting Process
• Permitting for a New Unit at an Existing Plant
• Permitting New Facilities
• Key Points
• Procedural
• Pre-Application Processes
• Coordinating with Federal and State Agencies
• Endangered Species Act Issues
• Public Participation Process

3

• 7. Substantive Issues
• a. Defining the Source
• b. BACT
• c. MACT
• d. Enforceability
• e. Air Quality Modeling Issues

4
WHY WE ARE INTERESTED IN 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 /mmBtu
• Oil 24.45 48.25 /barrel
• Coal 25.52 36.38 /ton (Illinois basin)
• www.eia.doe.gov
• Current as of 2/14/05

5
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

• Local Land use and siting issues
• Local 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.

6
PUBLIC 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.

7
THE PERMITTING PROCESS

• Pre-permitting activities
• Site analysis
• Community relations
• Preparation of application
• The permit proceeding
• Building the record
• Avoiding delays
• Permit appeals
• Construction
• Operation

8
SUBSTANTIVE 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

9
PERMITTING 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

10
Permitting for New Unit at Existing Plant
Options for Avoiding NSR

• Netting
• Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs)
• These options may be available for some, but not
  all regulated pollutants

11
Netting
52.21(b)(3)(i) Net emissions increase

• 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

12
Netting

• 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

13
PAL 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
  EPAs PAL rules.

14
Effect 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.

15
Establishing 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

16
Determining 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.

17
Determining 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

18
Term 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

19
When 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.

20
PAL Renewal

• 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 sources
  PTE.

21
PAL Renewal

• The permitting authority may renew a sources 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

22
PAL 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.

23
Monitoring in PAL Permits

• Each permit must contain enforceable requirements
  that accurately determine plantwide emissions on
  a rolling 12-month basis.

24
Recordkeeping in PAL Permits

• 5 years from date most records are made
• Term of PAL plus 5 years for the PAL permit
  application and certifications of compliance

25
Reporting in PAL Permits

• 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

26
The 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

27
Preparing For The Permit Challenge

• 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
• Dont Rely on Agency to Build a Good Record
  Be Proactive
• Examples

28
Collecting 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

29
Meet 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
  Cant Do This in a Vacuum and Neither Can the
  Agency

30
Preparing 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 Didnt Do and Why Not
• Look for Checklists
• Include the Backup Information
• Be Prepared for an Iterative Process

31
Coordinating With Federal and State 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

32
WHY 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

33
WHY 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 ESAs Power to
  Delay and Change a Project

34
ESA BASICSCONSULTATION

• Endangered Species / Critical Habitat
• Discretionary Federal Action (permitting or
  funding) Affecting Species or Habitat
• Requirement to Consult with Fish Wildlife
  Service

35
EXIT 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)

36
ESA 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

37
ASSESSING 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

38
OTHER 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

39
Public 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)

40

• Substantive Issues

41
Defining 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

42

• BACT/MACT

43
Best Available Control Technology

• What is BACT? (Its 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. . . .

44
Best Available Control Technology

• ( No, its 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)

45
Best Available Control Technology

• 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

46
Best Available Control Technology

• Information That Must Be Considered
• Other Permits
• RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
• Draft or Proposed Permits
• Permit Applications
• NSPS Proposal February 9, 2005

47
Best Available Control Technology

• Other sources
• CEMs Data
• Source Tests
• Foreign Experience
• Vendor Guarantees
• Vendor Literature

48
Best Available Control Technology

• 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

49
IGCC 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

50
MACT

• 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
• Lots of possibilities.

51
(No Transcript)
52

• Enforceability

53
New Source Permitting 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)

54
New Source Permitting 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)

55
Historical View of Practical 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

56
Title 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)

57
Compliance Assurance 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

58
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)

• Permit will include enforceable obligation to
  investigate and take corrective action
• Must submit CAM Plan with Title V permit
  application

59
Then 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

60
Implementation 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

61
Implementation 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

62
Implementation 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

63
Implementation 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

64
Implementation 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

65
Implementation 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)

66
Implementation 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)

67
Air Quality Modeling Issues
68
Modeling 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

69
Modeling 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

70
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)

71
Selected 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)

72
Models 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

73
Models 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

74
NAAQS 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

75
NAAQS 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

76
NAAQS 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

77
NAAQS 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

78
Adverse 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 areas national significance, impairment of
  the structure and functioning of the areas
  ecosystem, or impairment of the quality of the
  visitor experience in the area.

79
AQRV Analysis -Visibility

• Visibility Impairment Any humanly
  perceptible change in visibility (light
  extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration)
  from that which would have existed under natural
  conditions.
• Significant Impairment Visibility impairment
  which, in the judgment of the Administrator,
  interferes with the management, protection,
  preservation, or enjoyment of the visitors
  visual experience.

80
AQRV 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

81
Visibility 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

82
Visibility 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

83
Visibility Impairment- FLMs

• If the estimated single-source contribution to
  impairment is lt0.4 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 sources contribution to
  extinction is lt5.0 on all days, the FLM will
  likely not object to the permit

84
Visibility 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 lt10, the
  FLM is not likely to object to the permit

85
Visibility 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

86
Deposition 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

87
Deposition 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

88
Ozone 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

89
Additional 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)