1 / 23

FLMs, PSD Increment, and AQRVs: the Oregon experience

FLMs, PSD Increment, and AQRVs: the Oregon experience. WESTAR Fall Technical Conference Seattle 15-17 September 2003 Philip Allen, Oregon DEQ. Overview. Class I Area Increment & AQRVs Oregon’s permit process EPA & FLMs Class I areas Standards and criteria levels Example results.

garrett-herrera
Download Presentation

FLMs, PSD Increment, and AQRVs: the Oregon experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FLMs, PSD Increment, and AQRVs:the Oregon experience WESTAR Fall Technical Conference Seattle 15-17 September 2003 Philip Allen, Oregon DEQ

  2. Overview • Class I Area Increment & AQRVs • Oregon’s permit process • EPA & FLMs • Class I areas • Standards and criteria levels • Example results

  3. Federal Class I Areas: Oregon and Washington (NPS, Forest Service Region 6)

  4. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Regions Region 6

  5. Single Source NSR AQ Analysis • Scope • Class II NAAQS and PSD Increment • Class I NAAQS, PSD Increment, AQRVs • Comments/input on the AQ analysis • Recommendations from FLM and other agencies (states, EPA as available) • Final recommendation based on DEQ review of impacts vs. standards, and FLM and other comments.

  6. DEQ: Single source AQ Analysis Timeline Protocol Review Target is < 21 days Protocol Development Final Protocol AQ Analysis by consultant FLM Input DEQ Review Application submittal Completeness Determination FLM Input DEQ Review Review Completed Completeness Determination < 10 days DEQ Review < 45 days since Completeness

  7. Protocol Development • Initial informal discussions with consultant • Location of proposed source • Type and availability of met data • Availability of background data • Provide consultant initial guidance • Protocol meeting • Scheduled in coordination with DEQ Regional Office • Attended by HQ AQ analyst, RO permit engineer, FLM, client, modeling consultant, and other client consultants.

  8. Protocol Development (cont.) • Protocol meeting scope • Type and size of new or modified source • Applicable AQ standards • Class II and Class I NAAQS and PSD Increment • Class I AQRV analysis required or requested ? • Models for near-source impact analysis and long range transport • Aermod-Prime/ISCPrime • Calpuff Lite/Calpuff • Other

  9. Protocol Development (cont.) • Protocol meeting scope (cont.) • Met data • Screening met • NWS • On-site • Background data • Competing sources

  10. Class I Area Visibility Monthly f(RH)

  11. Class I Area Monthly Reference Background

  12. Protocol guidance: AQRV calculations

  13. AQRV Criteria Levels

  14. PM10 speciation

  15. Modeling guidance: Postutil visibility parameters

  16. Modeling guidance: Calpost visibility parameters

  17. Modeling guidance: Postutil deposition parameters

  18. Class I Area Impacts • EPA regulated • NAAQS • PSD Increment • Federal Land Manager (FLM) regulated • Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) • S deposition • N deposition • Visibility • Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] • Ammonium Nitrate [NH4NO3] • Particulate Matter (PM) • Ozone [O3]

  19. Example: Class I PSD Increment

  20. Example: Class I AQRVs - Deposition

  21. Example: Class I AQRVs – Visibility

  22. How it has worked for DEQ and FLMs • California-Oregon Border (COB) project • Pacific Power • Bonanza (~ 30 km ESE of Klamath Falls) • Gerhart Wilderness Class I Area deposition ~> DAT • Klamath Generation Facility (KGF) • Visibility ~> 5% • Offsets • Pope and Talbot (Halsey) • Visibility ~> 5% • Deposition <= DAT

  23. How it has worked for DEQ and FLMs • DEQ views Class I PSD and AQRV analysis as a collaborative effort with EPA and the FLMs • DEQ provides the door to FLM review: from protocol to application submittal prepare the source and their consultant for the FLM review of AQRV impacts • Coordination with FLMs throughout process • Prevents surprises at end (get problems addressed early) • Consultant and source know what is expected • Accelerates review of the application • Fosters culture where FLM is considered the expert on AQRVs, and manager of their respective Class I areas.

More Related