1. www.hunton.com 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. www.hunton.com 1.Why Are We Interested in Permitting Coal-Fired Power Plants? 2.The Permitting Process 3.Permitting for a New Unit at an Existing Plant 4.Permitting New Facilities 5.Key Points 6.Procedural a.Pre-Application Processes b.Coordinating with Federal and State Agencies c.Endangered Species Act Issues d.Public Participation Process OVERVIEW

3. www.hunton.com 7.Substantive Issues a.Defining the Source b.BACT c.MACT d.Enforceability e.Air Quality Modeling Issues

4. www.hunton.com 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 Oil24.45 48.25 $/barrel Coal25.52 36.38 $/ton (Illinois basin) ** www.eia.doe.govwww.eia.doe.gov Current as of 2/14/05

5. www.hunton.com 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. www.hunton.com PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES n Develop public interest support n Low cost energy is vital to public health and welfare especially for low and fixed income citizens ( Klein Keeney report) n 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. www.hunton.com 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. www.hunton.com 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. www.hunton.com PERMITTING PROCESS n Optimizing a Plant and Permit Given the Constraints Imposed. n Constraints n The Law (BACT/MACT/LAER, Air Quality Requirements, Others) n Fuel Characteristics n Site Characteristics n Economics n Public Policy n Opposition n Need to Provide Certainty of the Goal and Flexibility in Achieving It. Need to preserve options

10. www.hunton.com Options for Avoiding NSR Permitting for New Unit at Existing Plant n Netting n Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs) n These options may be available for some, but not all regulated pollutants

11. www.hunton.com Netting 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 n “contemporaneous” n and “otherwise creditable” §52.21(b)(3)(i) – Net emissions increase

12. www.hunton.com Netting n Contemporaneous period: n 5 years under federal rules n States may adopt different periods n Decreases creditable only to the extent: n Ambient impacts are the same n Lower of old actual or allowable emissions exceeds new level of actual emissions n Enforceable n Quantifiable

13. www.hunton.com PAL Definition n 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.

14. www.hunton.com Effect of a PAL n 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. www.hunton.com Establishing a PAL n Must apply for a PAL n 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 n PAL must be established in a federally enforceable permit n Reviewing authority must provide opportunity for public participation, including a comment period and the opportunity for a public hearing on the PAL

16. www.hunton.com Determining the PAL Level n For each covered pollutant, baseline actual emissions are added to an amount equal to the applicable significance level per PAL pollutant. n Determine baseline actual emissions using the same 24-month period for all units. n 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. www.hunton.com Determining the PAL Level n Baseline actual emissions cannot exceed emission limit allowed by current permits or applicable rules (e.g., NSPS, RACT) n Set pollutant by pollutant n Can cover one or more pollutants n Expressed as TPY per pollutant

18. www.hunton.com Term of PAL n The term of a PAL is 10 years. n 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. www.hunton.com When a PAL Expires n Once a PAL expires, physical and operational changes are no longer evaluated under the PAL applicability provisions. n Source owner must comply with any applicable federal or requirement for a specific emissions unit (e.g., BACT, RACT, NSPS). n Limits eliminated by a PAL (e.g., 52.21(r) limits) do not return upon PAL expiration.

20. www.hunton.com PAL Renewal n A source owner applying to renew a PAL must recalculate the maximum PAL level, taking into account newly applicable requirements. n The new PAL level may not exceed the source’s PTE.

21. www.hunton.com PAL Renewal n 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. n “Use it or lose it”

22. www.hunton.com PAL Renewal n 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. www.hunton.com Monitoring in PAL Permits n Each permit must contain enforceable requirements that accurately determine plantwide emissions on a rolling 12-month basis.

24. www.hunton.com n 5 years from date most records are made n Term of PAL plus 5 years for the PAL permit application and certifications of compliance Recordkeeping in PAL Permits

25. www.hunton.com n Semi-annual reporting is required. n Reports are to list all deviations or monitoring malfunctions. n Each such report is to be signed by the responsible official who certifies the accuracy of the report Reporting in PAL Permits

26. www.hunton.com The Permitting Process Key Points n Think Backwards – “What Do I Need on Appeal?” n Anticipate Issues and Provide Solutions in the Record n Keep the Momentum Moving Forward n Understand What is Required Versus What is Desired – FLAG and Draft NSR Manual Are Not Law n Join the Network – But Watch Out for the Folklore n Use Caution and Maintain Credibility

27. www.hunton.com Preparing For The Permit Challenge n Plan Ahead – Build the Record n Know the Process and Standard of Review n “Open” or “Closed” Record? n When Does the Record Close? n De Novo or Deference? n Burden of Proof n Choose your experts accordingly n Don’t Rely on Agency to Build a Good Record – Be Proactive n Examples

28. www.hunton.com Collecting Necessary Information n Much of the Information Needed for a Permit is Available in the Public Domain n Examples Include: n Ambient Air Quality Monitoring n Meteorological Data n Source Inventories n Monitoring Information n Technology Databases n Think About Why the Information Was Collected n Quality Assurance/Quality Control Issues n Remember That Many of the Permit Analyses Are Case-by-Case

29. www.hunton.com Meet With The Agencies n Pre-Application Meetings n Site Visits n Determine the Level of Expertise in BACT/MACT, Modeling and Other Areas n Be Prepared to Educate and Supplement Resources n Identify Particular Concerns n Establish a Long-Term Working Relationship – You Can’t Do This in a Vacuum and Neither Can the Agency

30. www.hunton.com Preparing the Permit Application n Tell Your Story –Why is this project “optimum” and in the public interest n Be Objective n Tell What You Did and Why n Tell What You Didn’t Do and Why Not n Look for Checklists n Include the Backup Information n Be Prepared for an Iterative Process

31. www.hunton.com Coordinating With Federal and State Agencies n PSD Does Not Trigger NEPA n PSD Regulations Do Require Coordination With Other Agencies in Their Compliance with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(s) n State Public Service Corporation Review (economic development and increment) n Army Corps of Engineers Review n State Regulation ( e.g., air toxics, little NEPAs, State ESA) n ESA Issues

32. www.hunton.com WHY THE ESA MATTERS n Recent decisions and activities have triggered ESA review in the context of air permitting for power plants n EPA has determined that PSD permitting by delegated state is “federal action” triggering Section 7 of ESA n Sierra Club has filed notices of citizen suits against EPA for failure to consider ESA in Title V permit review

33. www.hunton.com WHY THE ESA MATTERS n ESA consultation process = n Delay n$n$ n Project Design or Operation Changes n Uncertainty n FWS Can be Aggressive (especially if they coordinate on visibility and ESA issues) n Environmental Groups Aware of ESA’s Power to Delay and Change a Project

34. www.hunton.com ESA BASICS–CONSULTATION n Endangered Species / “Critical Habitat” + n Discretionary Federal Action (permitting or funding) Affecting Species or Habitat = n Requirement to Consult with Fish & Wildlife Service

35. www.hunton.com EXIT RAMPS n No federal action n No discretionary authority affecting species or habitat n Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment / ECO Risk Software n No Effect – Convince State (if involved) and Federal Agencies that Permitting the Plant Will Have No Effect on Endangered Species and “Critical Habitat” n Not Likely to Adversely Affect and FWS Concurrence n Informal Consultation (Biological Assessment) n Formal Consultation (Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement)

36. www.hunton.com ESA BASICS-TAKE n Prohibition on “Take” n “Take” broadly defined to include: n Harm n Adverse modification of habitat n Prohibition applies with or without Federal action and consultation n Take requires “Incidental Take Permit” n Unpermitted take = liability n Examples; Wind energy; air emissions

37. www.hunton.com ASSESSING ESA CONCERNS n Potential causes of impacts n Plant site n Area of impact n Air emissions n Water intake and discharge n Associated facilities n Mine site n Transmission lines n Roads n Off-site construction area n Consider Migratory versus Local Species

38. www.hunton.com OTHER LAWS OF CONCERN n State Endangered Species Laws n Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act n National Historic Preservation Act n Migratory Bird Treaty Act n Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

39. www.hunton.com Public Participation Process n Build a Record So That the Public Can Follow It n Work With the Agency to Ensure Compliance with Public Participation Requirements, Especially Public Notice n File Your Own Responses to Comments n Work With Permitting Agency to Ensure Well Documented Permit Package n Commence Construction / Get an extension (keep the permit alive)

40. www.hunton.com Substantive Issues

41. www.hunton.com Defining the Source n Case-by-Case Analysis n Operational Limits of the “Source” n Tail Wagging the Dog Problem n Common ownership n Contiguous n Same SIC Code n Restrictions on Construction ( e.g., Retrofit) n Restrictions on Operation ( e.g., Type of Fuel) n Type of Combustion

42. www.hunton.com BACT/MACT

43. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology n 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....

44. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology ( 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)

45. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology n BACT is an Emission Limit or Work Practice n BACT is a Case-by-Case Analysis n What is “Achievable” n What is “Available” n BACT Does Not Redefine the Source n BACT is Done on a Pollutant-by-Pollutant Basis n BACT Considers Multi-Pollutant Effects n BACT Considers Environmental, Energy and Economic Costs

46. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology n Information That Must Be Considered n Other Permits n RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse n Draft or Proposed Permits n Permit Applications n NSPS Proposal February 9, 2005

47. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology n Other sources n CEMs Data n Source Tests n Foreign Experience n Vendor Guarantees n Vendor Literature

48. www.hunton.com Best Available Control Technology n BACT is not the lowest level ever recorded n Need for a Cushion n What Can Be Achieved Under Worst-Case, Reasonably Foreseeable Circumstances n Not the Best Day or the Average Day n Long term achievability

49. www.hunton.com IGCC as BACT n “Defining the Source” n Greg Foote white paper n ED Memorandum to Utah DEQ n View of states/EPA HQ n NESCAUM briefs in several proceedings n We Energy n Practical advice

50. www.hunton.com MACT n NSPS Proposed Rule February 10, 2005 n Proposed Rule – January 30, 2004 n Supplemental Notice – March 16, 2004 n Much Concern Over Feasibility of Proposed Limits n Preambles Offer Some Insights n Case-by-Case MACT n What is Demonstrated in Practice n MACT Floor n Rule Due on March 15, 2005 n Lot’s of possibilities.

51. www.hunton.com

52. Enforceability

53. www.hunton.com New Source Permitting Scenarios n Preconstruction permitting only Title V permit application within 12 months after start-up (unless state requires earlier) n Parallel processing (state requires submission of Title V application earlier but processes separately)

54. www.hunton.com New Source Permitting Scenarios n Combined preconstruction/Title V permitting program n If state has adequate authority and NSR programs uses “enhanced procedures” that are substantially equivalent to Title V n Could result in greater involvement of EPA and public in PSD permitting (because of veto authority and petition process)

55. www.hunton.com Historical View of Practical Enforceability n To be “practically enforceable,” preconstruction permitting requirements must contain n A clearly defined emission limit and identify the portion of source to which it applies n A time period, e.g., 24-hours, daily, monthly, annually n Consistent with the substantive requirement n Consistent with the compliance method n A clearly defined compliance method, including monitoring recordkeeping and reporting

56. www.hunton.com Title V Monitoring n Title V added “Periodic Monitoring” n Applies if underlying requirement imposes no requirement for ongoing testing (e.g., only startup performance tests) n Must specify a frequency for additional testing n No separate “sufficiency monitoring” requirement (Jan. 2004 EPA rule)

57. www.hunton.com Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) n “Enhanced monitoring” implemented through Title V n CAM applies to emission limit if: n An active control device is needed to meet limit n There is no “continuous compliance method” (e.g., CEMS) n CAM Plan must include n Control device indicators to be monitored n Acceptable operating ranges (or process for developing ranges or trigger levels) n Necessary when CAM applies during preconstruction permitting n Must include a schedule for testing n Monitor performance criteria

58. www.hunton.com Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) n Permit will include enforceable obligation to investigate and take corrective action n Must submit CAM Plan with Title V permit application

59. www.hunton.com Then and Now n Historically, monitoring and testing in preconstruction permits has ranged from AP-42, to startup performance test, to CEMS n Title V adds n A minimum frequency of testing after startup n CAM as indicator monitoring for some emission limits n Increasingly, citizen groups and agencies insisting on continuous monitoring at preconstruction stage n Preference for CEMS n Enforceable operating parameters where CEMS not available

60. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n Most issues are with PM and HAPS (SO2, NOx, CO CEMS well proven in coal-fired application) n Particulate matter (PM) n PM CEMS n EPA finalized Performance Specification (PS 11) and quality assurance/quality control (Procedure 2) in January 2004 n Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, and Portland Cement Association have challenged

61. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n PM CEMS n Technical issues n Technology requires “calibration” to Method 5, calibration curves can change n Single point monitoring not account for stratification n EPA statistics allows data with significant error band to pass n Existing BACT/LAER standards not based on PM CEMS data

62. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n PM CEMS n Applications to PSD permits n Region 8 has commented to state that PM CEMS should be required for new source (headquarters says not national policy) n Two states have issued PSD permit with PM CEMS requirement n Anticipate this will be an issue in most new coal- fired source permits

63. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n PM CEMS n Defenses n PS 11 preamble states that PM CEMS apply when required by rulemaking and that additional industry- specific operational requirements may be required (NSPS) n PM CEMS Technical documents acknowledge need to establish limit with PM CEMS data n PM CAM Plan n Difficult and complex because stack emissions are affected by multiple control technologies n May need to propose multiple options and collect test data prior to finalizing

64. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n Hg n Hg CEMS and Method 324 (Sorbent Trap) n No performance standard or QA/QC promulgated n Proposed standards never been achieved in practice n EPA/EPRI research project to install and test Hg CEMS and Method 324 ability to meet proposed standards underway n Will become issue in permits once EPA issues final utility mercury rule n Hg CAM Plans n CAM exempts standards proposed under § 112 after 1990 n EPA position in Utility Hg proposals that CAM not sufficient for MACT

65. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n AP-42 n EPA initiative questioning use of emission factors for establishing compliance n Condensible Particulate Matter n PM –10 (the regulated pollutant) is defined to include filterable and condensible PM n EPA Method 202 for condensable has positive artifact (overstates PM)

66. www.hunton.com Implementation Issues n Condensable Particulate Matter n Establishment of appropriate limit will be issue n Little data exists on achievable PM-10 limits that include condensable n Seek higher limit to account for Method 202 results or seek separate limits on individual identifiable condensable (sulfuric acid mist)

67. www.hunton.com Air Quality Modeling Issues

68. www.hunton.com Modeling Required n In all cases, a permit applicant must show that a major new source will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of— n Any applicable PSD increment, or n A National Ambient Air Quality Standard “in any air quality control region” n An applicant must also analyze the impact of the facility and associated growth on visibility, soils and vegetation with commercial or recreational value

69. www.hunton.com Modeling Required n For Class I areas, must also address “air quality-related values,” including visibility (AQRVs) n 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. www.hunton.com Selected Relevant Regulations n 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(c), (k), (l), (o), & (p) n 40 C.F.R. § 51.307 n 40 C.F.R. Part 51, App. W n 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(29), (c), (k), (l), (o), & (p)

71. www.hunton.com Selected Relevant Guidance n New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting (Oct. 1990 Draft) n Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (December 2000) n Guidance on Deposition Analysis Thresholds (2002) (From the National Park Service & the Fish & Wildlife Service) n Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts (Dec. 1998)

72. www.hunton.com Models to Use n For NAAQS and increment analyses, generally must follow the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 C.F.R. Appendix W) n ISC-3 for most applications n CALPUFF for distances greater than 50 km n General practice has been to use ISC-3 for non- Class I modeling and to set the SIA at 50 km n CALPUFF is also recommended by the Federal Land Managers for AQRV analyses

73. www.hunton.com Models to Use n If the model specified by the Guideline is “inappropriate,” it can be modified or another model specified n On a case-by-case or state-wide basis n Requires written approval by the Administrator n Requires an opportunity for notice and comment

74. www.hunton.com NAAQS & Increment Analyses n Getting Started n Protocol n Address all aspects of the modeling n Get it approved n Preliminary modeling n Determine if exceed thresholds so preconstruction monitoring and refined modeling is required n Determine the SIAs for refined modeling n Need to know if a short-term limit (3-hr or 24-hr) for SO 2 will be required as it will affect the SIA

75. www.hunton.com NAAQS & Increment Analyses n Preconstruction monitoring n If request approval to use existing data remember to include ozone n Refined modeling n Grid should identify highest impacts n Annual – maximum annual mean n Short-term – high-second-high

76. www.hunton.com NAAQS & Increment Analyses n Adequacy of inventory can be a concern n NAAQS and Increment inventories are not the same n NAAQS – all sources modeled using their potential emissions n Increment – sources modeled depend on whether minor source baseline has been triggered and can use actual emissions based on two years of data n Violations may be modeled in attainment areas n Culpability analysis required to determine if causing or contributing to the modeled violation

77. www.hunton.com NAAQS & Increment Analyses n Other issues n Methods to model ozone or PM 2.5 from a single source must be selected on a case- by-case basis n Typically single-source ozone modeling not required but look for regional modeling to include in the record n 8-hr Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS have yet to be fully implemented n Currently there are no increments for ozone or PM 2.5

78. www.hunton.com 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 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.”

79. www.hunton.com AQRV Analysis -Visibility n Visibility Impairment – “[A]ny humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.” n 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.”

80. www.hunton.com AQRV Analysis - Visibility n Case-by-case analysis, taking into account n Geographic extent of impairment n Duration of impairment n Frequency of impairment n Time of impairment n Correlation with times of visitor use n Frequency and timing of natural conditions that impair visibility

81. www.hunton.com Visibility Impairment - FLMs n Use the CALPUFF model to conduct a single-source contribution analysis n MESOPUFF II chemistry option n Use hourly relative humidity n Use default ammonia background levels n Using the maximum predicted 24-hr values for SO 4, NO 3, and HNO 3, calculate extinction coefficients for each pollutant

82. www.hunton.com Visibility Impairment - FLMs n Compare to natural conditions n FLMs want a comparison to clean background visibility n Generally compare to the average 24-hour extinction values for the 20% cleanest conditions from the IMPROVE monitoring network

83. www.hunton.com Visibility Impairment- FLMs n If the estimated single-source contribution to impairment is <0.4% each day, the FLM will not object or require further analysis. n If the estimated single-source contribution to impairment is 10% on any day, the FLM is likely to object to the permit n 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

84. www.hunton.com Visibility Impairment -FLMs n In other situations, the FLM may ask for a cumulative analysis n 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 n If the cumulative extinction is always <10%, the FLM is not likely to object to the permit

85. www.hunton.com Visibility Impairment - Issues n Limits of human perception n Consideration of weather n Consideration of time of day n Characterization of natural background n Elevation effects n Time of day n Treatment of background ammonia

86. www.hunton.com Deposition Impacts - FLMs n Deposition Analysis Thresholds have been established by the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service n In the East - 0.01 kg/ha/yr N or S n In the West 0.005 kg/ha/yr N or S n These may not be used by the Forest Service

87. www.hunton.com Deposition Impacts - FLMs n A deposition impact analysis may be requested n Estimate the current S and N deposition rates at the Class I area n Estimate future deposition rates n Compare to screening criteria for the area n Critical loads n Concern thresholds n Screening level values n Exceedence may trigger a permit objection

88. www.hunton.com Ozone Impacts - FLMs n Focus is on vegetation n All native species are to be protected n Most sensitive species may not be known n Focus is on NO x unless an area is shown to be VOC-limited n If current ozone exposure is considered phytotoxic or damage to vegetation is seen, the FLM may seek “stricter than BACT” controls or offsets

89. www.hunton.com Additional Impact Analysis n Comparison to NAAQS may not be sufficient n Permitting agencies requesting analysis of heavy metals n May need to consider ambient background n Guidance is available n A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals, EPA 450/2-81-078 (Dec. 12, 1980)