992 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS INTRODUCTION Planning for a major new facility must address the envi- ronmental impact of both the construction and operational phases of the project. It is essential to optimize alternatives, while evaluating performance relative to regulated emis- sions and ambient standards and to develop a cost effective permitting strategy. For large scale projects, Quig (1980) recommends a highly integrated project approach for environmental com- pliance early in the planning stage based upon historical siting, licensing, engineering and construction experience with similar sized plants. Strong emphasis on early process work is necessary to understand environmental impacts. This and other front-end engineering and planning should be executed in very close coordination with the staff charged with documenting the licensing effort. Extensive use of specialists is generally required. The major federal acts to be addressed are: 1) National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA), 1969. 2) Clear Air Act Amendments, revised 1990. 3) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, 1972 (FWPCA). 4) Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976. 5) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 6) Historical and Archaeological Preservation Act of 1974. 7) Endangered Species Act, 1973. These federal and selected state environmental acts essentially address the following: Land Use Aspects (fuel storage, exclusion or buffer zones, waste disposal, zoning, and demography); Water Resources (availability and com- petitive uses, wastewater complexities and water quality, hazardous wastes, and waste heat); Air Quality/Meteorology (attainment/nonattainment areas, in terms of offset policy and lowest achievable emission rate; newsource perfor- mance standard for particulates; NO x and SO 2 ; prevention of significant deterioration in Class I, II, III; stack height credit; hazardous wastes; minor meteorologic changes); and Regulatory (multiple lead agency involvement, licens- ing strategy, feasibility of concept, permit requirements, and federal/state implementation). The environmental, health safety, and socio-economic impacts discussed above highlight the areas of concern which must be considered in the site characterization studies and subsequent reporting of the project compatibility with the proposed location. Baseline conditions must be identi- fied in the areas of potential impact. The characterization of the environment, the definition of the process operations and the identification of the potential impacts are the elements required for input to a comprehensive program of facility design for impact mitigation. As such, the development of an environmental statement of the project serves as feedback to the design effort with the result being a facility licensable from the environmental viewpoint. To illustrate the procedure we shall present a typical example, namely planning a new coal gasification plant. Technical details of gasification are discussed elsewhere in this Encyclopedia under Coal Gasification Processes. The example will focus on regulatory requirements and siting considerations. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The first step in any program of this nature is to define the regulatory requirements associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. This will define specific limitations and establish generally the study requirements for the program as they relate to the environmental, safety, health, and socioeconomic aspects of the development. AIR QUALITY RELATED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Federal Requirements At the Federal level, this project will be required to comply with the following air quality regulations and requirements. Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) A demonstration showing compliance with NAAQS must be made to EPA for approval to com- mence construction. This would involve modeling the anticipated plant emissions and imposing the resultant con- centration increases on representative ambient air quality conditions and comparing these with NAAQS. Information necessary for this demonstration would include the facility emissions as discussed earlier and the ambient air quality C016_007_r03.indd 992C016_007_r03.indd 992 11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 993 developed from a monitoring program or from representative data as available. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) The proposed air quality control system (AQCS) for the facility must be designed to comply with existing NSPS for the coal prepara- tion facilities (e.g., particulates), the gas turbine component (e.g., NO x ) and the auxiliary boiler (e.g., SO 2 ) of the plant. Since NSPS do not exist for the coal gasification compo- nent, appropriate AQCS Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluations will be performed to select the con- trol system. In addition the AQCS design will have to be reviewed with the EPA for approval to construct. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) No con- struction can commence until the PSD permit has been obtained. The report and application for the permit would have to consider the following: the emissions from the total facility; a BACT review for any regulated pollutant (NAAQS, allow- able increments, NESHAP), which the plant emties above “de minimis” values, an air quality review for all pollutants emitted, after controls are applied, over the “de minimis” emis- sion rates unless it were demonstrated that the air impacts of those emissions would not exceed the air quality impact “de minimis” values. As part of these demonstrations ambient air quality monitoring would have to be conducted for the same pollutants for which BACT demonstrations would be required unless representative monitoring data are available. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) The discharge to the atmosphere of pollutants regulated under NESHAP is not anticipated for this type of facility. However, tracking of EPA’s continued development of NESHAP should be carried out to ensure compliance with the regulations as they develop. New stationary sources and modifications to major sta- tionary sources are required by the Clean Air Act to obtain permits prior to construction of a new process facility. The stringency of permit requirements depends on the regional status of its compliance with ambient standards for particu- lar pollutants. For example, in zones having acceptable air quality referred to as “attainment areas” for a specific pollut- ant, the permits are of the prevention of significant deterio- ration (PFD) type. The code of federal regulations, US EPA Title 40 CFR, 51.166, specifies the set of minimum PSD air quality permit requirements to warrant approval by the US EPA. The primary objective of PSD is to insure new major sources and modifications of existing sources comply with NAAQS. Specific public notice requirements and subse- quent hearings allow for public comment to be part of the PSD review process. On the other hand, in a non-attainment area, NAA permits are required. NAA permits address area improvement of pollutant levels and falls under the state’s supervision, through a State Implementation Plan (SIP) enforced by the US EPA and DOJ. Either type of permit is subject to New Source Review (NSR). The physical change triggering regulation of pollutants is usually 100 or 250 tons per year, depending on the industrial source category. As of early 2005 the definition of major modification for coal fired power plants has come under dispute in the courts (see the discussion at the end of this article for further information). State Requirements The state may have air quality related requirements which will affect the proposed project. State requirements may include a permit to construct a facility if the construction of operation of the facility will release air contaminants into the atmosphere. The appli- cant must submit a completed application for Approval of Emissions and an Emission Inventory Questionnaire (along with a copy of the PSD Application) which show compli- ance with state air quality standards, toxic substance limita- tions and emission control requirements. WATER QUALITY RELATED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Federal Requirements At the Federal level, the major laws affecting the discharge of liquid effluents from the proposed facility are as follows: Clean Water Act (CWA) Under the CWA, the proposed project will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit before commencing construction and operation. The application to the EPA for these permits would be based on the conceptual design of the wastewater control systems which could ensure compliance with effluent limita- tions and water quality standards. Where effluent limitations are not specified for discharges from certain facilities, limi- tations on discharges from similar operations would be used as a guideline for design of the wastewater control systems. These designs would be used to support the application for an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit and the work effort neces- sary for its preparation will also address the discharge of toxic pollutants listed on the Section 307(a) toxic pollutants list and any other toxics discharged from the plant. A section 404 permit is required by the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredge or fill material in the navigable waters of the United States. This permit is required for the river structures associated with the facility and would be prepared and obtained concurrently with the Section 10 permit required under Rivers and Harbors Act (see discus- sion below) and the NPDES permit. Application for either an NPDES permit from the EPA or a Section 404 permit from the Corps will trigger the NEPA review process and is the basis upon which the preparation of an environmental report (ER), in support of a Federal EIS, is considered necessary. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) Under Section 10 of the RHA, any construction activity in a navigable waterway requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers. This permit will be required for the construction of the intact and discharge structures and the barge loading/unloading facilities. It would be submitted jointly as a common permit application with the Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit application. State Requirements The state often has water quality related regulations and requirements which must be complied with before approval C016_007_r03.indd 993C016_007_r03.indd 993 11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 994 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS to commence construction and/or operation of the proposed project can be obtained. They are typically as follows: A state regulatory agency may require that a certificate of approval be obtained prior to construction of a treatment facil- ity for handling industrial wastes. A report containing detailed information about the operation of the treatment facility must be developed and submitted prior to construction. Regulations may also require the submission of a permit application prior to discharge from an industrial source. The State may also issue a certification in accordance with the Clean Water Act which confirms that discharges from the facility will comply with effluent limitations and water quality standards. SOLID WASTE RELATED REGULATORY ACTIVITIES Federal Requirements The major Federal law governing the handling and disposal of solid waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The most significant sections of RCRA are Subtitle C, which deals with Hazardous Waste Management and Subtitle D, which deals with Non-hazardous Waste Management. Regulations pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA address identification and listing of hazardous waste, stan- dards applicable to generators, transporters, and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities and permit requirements for treatment, storage or dis- posal of hazardous waste. The project will require a permit for disposal of any solid wastes determined to be hazardous by the criteria in Section 3001 regulations. Operation practices of the solid waste management facility are also regulated. In this regard the work necessary to determine the nature of the solid waste generated by this facility must be carried out. If the wastes are determined to be hazardous (Section 3001 Criteria) the applicable requirements of Subtitle C or RCRA must be incorporated into the facility design. Regulations promulgated under Subtitle D or RCRA establish criteria for the development of State plans for management of solid waste. No requirements are directly imposed at the Federal level. State Requirements State plans for the management of solid waste (Hazardous and Non-hazardous) may be at varying stages of develop- ment. An application for a permit to operate a hazardous waste management facility may be filed with the state’s DNR if any solid wastes to be generated at the proposed facility can be classified as hazardous. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) The major provision of NEPA which significantly impacts the planning and scheduling for major industrial facilities is the need for Federal agencies contemplating major actions, such as issuing permits, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). In the case of this coal gasification facility, the requirement for a Federal EIS would be triggered by the application for an NPDES permit from EPA and/or a Section 404 or Section 10 permit from the Corps of Engineers for anticipated river structures. Upon designation of the lead agency based on discussions with the various Federal agencies and submit- tal of applications for permits, the EIS would be prepared according to CEQ final regulations. SITING THE PROJECT Geology, Topography, and Soils Geology studies should be performed to describe the soils, geologic and topographic setting of the site, particularly with respect to structural and topographic control of the local and regional groundwater flow systems. A secondary, albeit very important, purpose is the identification of potential geologi- cal hazards within the site area. Information sought includes physical and chemical soil characteristics, general topography, paleontology, and geological framework. Descriptions are sought for aquifer systems and characteristics including their name, thickness, depth, stratigraphy, and areal extent. Mineral production and unique geologic/geomorphic features will be documented. Pertinent data is summarized in tabular and/or graphic format. The results of the geology studies primarily define the soils, topographic, and geologic setting of the site. Potential impacts references these descriptive settings to evaluate impact magnitudes. The impact of plant site preparations and construction or localized site topography, soils and ero- sion characteristics, and site physical and economic geology are assessed. Geological hazards discussed include exces- sive slopes, unstable soils and fault zones. Groundwater Hydrology and Water Use The purpose of the groundwater studies is to understand the physical and chemical characteristics of the groundwater regime. This allows for an accurate assessment of groundwater impacts resulting from the proposed action in addition to for- mulation of mitigative measures to help alleviate these impacts. In addition, information necessary for the design of solid waste handling facilities as prescribed under RCRA is developed. Information sought includes general topography and geological framework, description of aquifer systems and characteristics including their name, thickness, depth, stra- tigraphy, and areal extent; seasonal groundwater levels, rate, and direction of flow; aquifer hydraulic properties including permeability, transmissivity, and storativity; surface water/ groundwater inter-relationships; location of aquifer recharge and discharge areas; ground water quality; and domestic, industrial, and municipal groundwater well distribution and characteristics. Long and short term regional and site specific (within 5 miles of the site) data is sought. Special efforts are made to document the location of contaminated areas. C016_007_r03.indd 994C016_007_r03.indd 994 11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 995 Groundwater sampling can be conducted in conjunction with surface water sampling. Samples are taken quarterly from monitoring wells. This information can then be evaluated in light of the projected facility emissions and demands on the area’s resources. The issues and concerns to be addressed include: 1) Use of groundwater by the plant, and the effects of lowering water levels or pressures for this reason or for construction purposes. 2) Changes in water quality, or effects on rocks/ deposits, caused by accidental leaks or spills, efflu- ent discharge, slag or scrubber sludge pits, surface water and the like. The potential impacts identi- fied are evaluated in light of their magnitude and importance. Extra attention is paid to those judged significantly high in either value. By early identification of stresses that might affect the natu- ral systems, steps can be taken to minimize the impacts or alleviate them to an acceptable degree. Mitigative measures that can be taken during plant design, construction or opera- tion, such as adding clay liners, for example, can be evaluated and described. Using the results of plant design, the initial impact eval- uation and the adopted mitigative measures, a final evalua- tion is made of the effects of the construction and operation of the proposed plant and ancillary facilities on the natural environmental systems. This activity evaluates expected effects of the proposed plant both during and after construction of the groundwater hydrologic environment. Each effect is evaluated as to its unavoidable adverse effects and favorable effects. Surface Water Hydrology and Water Use The purpose of the surface water studies is to determine, develop and present the surface water quantity and quality characteristics of the site and its surrounding environs. These data and information are analyzed and evaluated in recognition of the proposed facility’s operation and construction related characteristics to determine and project potential effects and impacts on the surrounding surface water. Specifically, the objectives are: 1) To provide a quantitative description of the hydro- logic setting of the site and its vicinity including any stream flow characteristics (i.e., flood and low flow frequencies, seasonal ranges, averages, and historical extremes), and the physical and chemical water quality characteristics of source and receiving waters. Annual and seasonal ranges and averages are developed. 2) To identify the other water uses (withdrawals as well as discharges) and users including the loca- tion and quantities involved; 3) To identify the existing water quality criteria and regulations affecting plant discharges, and 4) To evaluate the impact of construction and opera- tion of the proposed plant on adjacent surface waters, with regard to the applicable water quality criteria, and related permit requirements. The data and information needed for the description of the hydrologic setting of the surface waters of the site and evalu- ation of the plant’s impact include the following: 1) Geographic and topographic maps of the site area containing varying degrees of local and regional details to delineate the drainage basin and its drainage patterns. 2) Watershed characteristics such as geometry, slope, vegetation types and density, and soil types to derive rainfall-runoff relationships (empirical runoff coefficient). 3) Records of rainfall events to estimate overland flow. 4) Records of stream flows from gaging stations on local water courses. These data are used in defin- ing statistical stream flow characteristics. 5) Meteorological data including air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, wind speed and evaporation data, and thermal plume calculations (as needed). 6) Records of various water users, locations of with- drawal, quality, and quantities involved. 7) Proposed plant site location map, grade elevation, drainage pattern, character of soil types, and cover. 8) The physical and chemical water quality charac- teristics of the surrounding surface waters. 9) The facility description and operational characteris- tics relating to the discharge quantity and quality. In addition, construction procedures, methods, sched- ules, and erosion control features are needed. In addition to a water quality characterization program, the required data is collected through existing sources. This would involve a thorough search, review, and compilation of the existing hydrological data base. Appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies are contacted and interviewed and published regulatory materials is reviewed to gain informa- tion regarding other water users and water laws affecting the plant construction and operation. A field monitoring program is carried out to obtain water quality characteristics of intake and discharge waters. Water quality samples are taken quarterly from selected stations. A hydrological assessment of the construction phase is undertaken to: 1) identify changes in drainage patterns and possible effects on flooding potential, 2) identify changes in riparian terrestrial habitat areas, 3) identify the potential for erosion and local soil losses. These impact areas are addressed, and mitigating measures are specified for their control. C016_007_r03.indd 995C016_007_r03.indd 995 11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 996 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS For the operational phase, the various aqueous discharges from the plant are inventoried and evaluated. Results of plume analyses, if appropriate, are critiqued with respect to compliance with applicable water quality criteria and standards. Recommendations concerning the potential opti- mization of the plant water management plan are made to reduce or eliminate environmentally objectionable dis- charges. Consumptive water use for the plant is identified to determine the effects of plant operation on intake waters and downstream users. Recommendations concerning opti- mization of the plant water management plan and the use of alternate or supplemental sources of water are made, if warranted. Ecology The ecological studies are designed to generate and assemble pertinent data to determine the status of threatened and endangered species, and commercially or recreationally important wildlife species, and to identify and locate sen- sitive, unique, and critical aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat areas in the site area. Additionally, the status of com- mercially or recreationally important fish in any site intake and discharge waters is determined. The biological setting is then analyzed in light of the proposed plant construction and operational characteristics to arrive at assessments of impact potential. Terrestrial Ecology In evaluating the impact of the project on the terrestrial environment, the work objective is to assess both construc- tion and operation of the facility utilizing “baseline” data developed and secured from field programs, literature, and agency contacts. Animal species, occurrence, abundance, distribution, and preferred habitat associations and principal ecological interactions are determined. Habitats are identi- fied and described as natural plant communities within the site. Additionally, discussions and data gathering activities focus on vertebrates and prominent otherwise important plant community components. Construction-related effects largely result from veg- etation and habitat removal, which often constitutes the major impact of a major industrial facility on terrestrial communities. Assessment of vegetation loss due to land clearing is based on previous identification and mapping of regionally productive rare, or otherwise important vegetation types. In this regard, the role of plants in soil stability warrants detailed consideration. Effects of facility construction on wildlife is also evaluated in terms of important habitat areas. Attention is focused on those species which appear sensitive to habitat loss (e.g., species already limited by factors relat- ing to habitat availability), which function as critical compo- nents of a community, or which are considered “important.” The latter category refers to wildlife designated uncommon, threatened or endangered, or wildlife of recreational or eco- nomic value. An assessment of project operation including existing and proposed effects on vegetation must consider stack and cooling tower emissions. Predicted ground-level concentra- tions of stack emissions and cooling tower salt are compared to exposure levels considered thresholds for possible injury or damage, and to exposure levels documented as injurious under filed conditions. Potential effects of facility operation (existing and pro- posed units) on wildlife from stack emissions, dust, increased human activities, and noise are evaluated. Additionally, the potential for bird collisions with plant components is evalu- ated. The magnitude of a potential bird-collision problem is evaluated from data compiled during field studies. Included in the impact assessment analysis is the use of the plant site by wildlife during station operation. Collecting ponds and other waste bodies provide habitat for waterfowl and amphibians, while areas cleared during construction and allowed to revegetate (or which are replanted) potentially provide habitat for a variety of species. Aquatic Ecology The aquatic ecology of the site intake and discharge waters as well as habitat removal associated with barge facilities is addressed, habitat and food web relationships of the system characterized and potential impacts to the system estimated. Data requirements are met by literature review, interviews, and discussions with local fishermen and scientists and field collections. While data gathering focuses on fish species, particularly the commercially or recreationally important species, other biotic elements of the lotic and lentic environ- ments are identified. Evaluation of potential impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed facility consist of projecting the effects of the various activities on the description of existing environmental conditions developed as a result of the field program, literature review and agency contacts described above. The primary construction impacts likely to affect the aquatic habitat are those associated with the construction of the intake facility and secondarily increased erosion due to construction. Impact assessment of construction activi- ties centers primarily on habitat lost or denied due to actual physical placement of structures and habitat degradation. Attention is focused on those species which appear sensi- tive to habitat loss; which function as critical components of the aquatic community; or are considered “important” (rate, threatened or endangered, or of commercial or recreational value). Assessment of operational impacts centers on the effects of water withdrawal and the associated losses to the fish commu- nity due to entrainment and impingement. Potential changes in the population structure all addressed. Losses are estimated from population densities and from the field sampling program. Entrainment losses are expressed as “adult-equivalents” if war- ranted for important species. Potential discharge effects (ther- mal and chemical) are based on information developed from the literature review and input of engineering parameters. C016_007_r03.indd 996C016_007_r03.indd 996 11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM11/18/2005 11:01:29 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 997 Land and Waterway Use The purpose of the land and waterway use—demographics effort is to: 1) determine the existing land use of the site and existing and future land and waterway use pat- terns in the surrounding area in order to assess any conflicts which may exist and to evaluate any impacts on land use that may occur from the con- struction and operation of the plant; and 2) determine the population growth patterns of the area in order to assess the impact the plant will have on nearby towns and communities in the area. Based on the existing land uses, and the analysis performed by other disciplines such as terrestrial and aquatic ecology and air quality, impacts upon adjacent land uses caused by construction and operation are estimated. This impact assessment includes the impact of storage pond construc- tion, noise, dust, plant appearance, stack emissions, cool- ing tower fogging and salt depositions, and construction stage traffic activity on residential, recreational, agricul- tural, and other adjacent land uses in the area, as well as the compatibility of the proposed plant with local land use plans, aesthetics, and regulations. Specific attention is given to the type and relative value of the land uses to be preempted or adversely affected by plant construction and operation. The impacts of the increase in activities on a river if applicable is estimated including additional barge traffic staging in the area and the impact of these activities on exist- ing movements and facilities in the vicinity of the area. The demographic impact assessment consists of com- paring the population projections for the study area to the expected population influx to be caused by plant construc- tion and operation. The comparison is done by taking the estimated plant-related population influx as a percentage of the total projected population of the area to be affected by the incoming workers and families. Socioeconomics The purpose of the socioeconomics studies is to deter- mine and describe the existing socioeconomic base for the plant region and surrounding major towns and to assess the changes, either positive or negative, which would occur as a result of the construction and operation at the proposed site. The existing socioeconomic based is described for those areas likely to be impacted by the influx of construction and operational employment for the plant. Information required to describe the socioeconomic base of the area includes the following: 1) peak number of construction workers by craft during each year of plant construction; 2) estimate of the number of immigrant construction workers expected during construction of the plant; 3) existing and future capacity of the schools, hospi- tals, fire, sewer, etc., facilities in site area; 4) local government fiscal capabilities and local tax structure and tax bases; 5) employment and income statistics; and 6) economic base studies. Socioeconomic impacts can result from the influx of immigrant construction workers to the area around the plant. This occurs when the construction force required to build the plant is fairly large and there are a number of large construction projects competing for the labor supply in the area. The socioeconomic demand analysis qualitatively com- pares the demand for service facilities, and employment during the construction and operation of the plant with the baseline socioeconomic projections. Any perceived increases in demand for local facilities is qualitatively evaluated with respect to the cost of the facilities and the ability of local units to finance them. Impacts associated with plant operation to be assessed include an evaluation of the change in local tax structure as a result of a large influx of new tax revenues to the local governments and the impact associated with the relocation of plant operating personnel into the area. Noise The purpose of this effort is to sample the existing ambi- ent noise levels surrounding the proposed site, and to esti- mate the environmental noise impact produced by the plant operation. In order to properly assess the noise environmental impact, plant noise emissions should be evaluated in terms of any State or local noise regulations. Consequently, vari- ous State and local regulatory agencies are contacted to determine the status of the regulatory constraints that might be imposed on the plant operation and construction noise emissions. In the absence of any such constraints, US EPA’s guidelines for the protection of “Public Health and Welfare,” as indicated in the “Levels Document” (550/9-74-004) are followed. A literature review is conducted to assist in identifying the major sources of noise of the plant and in quantifying them. The search includes various professional journals, other environmental reports, and manufacturers’ publica- tions. Construction schedule, equipment list, general arrange- ment drawings, project description manual, and operational parameters of major plant equipment (Forced Draft Fans, Turbine Generator, Pumps and Motors) are obtained from the appropriate sources. The facility noise levels are then evaluated and assessed in terms of existing regulations or guidelines and any potential restrictive conditions in either the working environment or the general site environment are identified. In addition, potential limitations to equipment are identi- fied as are appropriate mitigative measures. C016_007_r03.indd 997C016_007_r03.indd 997 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 998 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS Cultural Resources Cultural resource studies involve a review of appropriate records, and site-related literature to identify sensitive archaeo- logical, historical, recreational, and aesthetic resources in the project area. Most of the information required for cultural resource studies is available from State and Federal cultural resource agencies and societies. An on-site survey is conducted to locate any cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Project components which affect significant cultural resources are identified and the magnitude of the impact evaluated. Mitigation alternatives are addressed. If seri- ous impacts are discovered they should be brought to the attention of the developers promptly so that policy deci- sions can be made at the earliest opportunity to rectify the situation. Air Quality/Meteorology The purpose of this program is to obtain and analyze Air Quality/Meteorology data so that: the site can be charac- terized; the air quality implications of the facility can be evaluated; mitigative and control measures can be devel- oped; and an Environmental Report and PSD application can be prepared. The data required for the Air Quality/Meteorological pro- gram work efforts relate to: (1) The air quality/meteorological characterization of the existing site and region; and (2) The facility’s atmospheric emissions and operating characteristics. Specifically, the existing site and region must be characterized in terms of the regulated pollutant such as SO 2 , Particulates, NO x , CO, Photochemical Oxidants, and the local meteorol- ogy, including winds, stability, and other physical charac- teristics. In addition, the facility’s emission characteristics including their quantity and quality must be developed so that their impacts can be established. To establish the required data base it is necessary to gather and update existing emission inventory information, collate meteorological and air quality data, review present and proposed PSD Class I and nonattainment areas, evaluate topographic influences and monitor the region’s air quality characteristics. The task of establishing adequate meteorological and air quality data bases includes evaluating any existing local meteorological and air quality data. The validity of the data and its representativeness with respect to the proposed site must also be assessed. As required, data from other sources is evaluated as a basis for comparison with local data, or as a supplement to local data where necessary. The objective is to establish meteorological and air quality data bases which are most representative of the proposed site. A report should be prepared to provide technical sup- port for a construction permit application under the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1977. Described in the report are the data bases, methodologies and models utilized in the analyses. The PSD report also includes appropriate maps, summary tables and figures necessary to display relevant information such as locations of plant sites, PSD Class I and nonattainment areas, and resultant pollutant concentrations. An atmospheric impact assessment of the proposed and alternative cooling tower types is included in the ER. Operational impacts of the tower to be considered include elevated visible plumes and deposition of cooling tower drift. Computer modeling is utilized to predict the impact of these occurrences. Ground level fogging/icing is also addressed. Computer modeling is utilized to predict the frequency and duration of ground level fogging and icing for the alternative cooling towers. The potential for interaction of the cooling tower and stack plumes must also be addressed. National Weather Service (NWS) data can be supplemented by any available meteorological data to the fullest extent pos- sible to develop the estimates of cooling frequencies, and salt deposition rates are given on an area basis and include more detailed information, as necessary, for any sensitive receptors. Health Implications The purpose of this work effort is to identify and evaluate the potential health concerns, including estimates of offsite exposures that may result from facility operation at the site. Once the concerns are identified, the need for controls and the feasibility of the gasification plant at a particular site from a public health perspective can be evaluated. Changes in coal type, process or waste treatment systems can be addressed if needed to mitigate a potential health concern. This allows and insures that alleviation of potential health problems is an integral part of the facility planning. The health implications to the offsite population are iden- tified and assessed. Specific analytical measurements from pilot plant studies, available information from similar indus- trial plants, and other existing studies regarding the health implications from coal conversion processes are used. The overall approach involves scaling the results of specific pilot plant runs and other study results to approximate a commer- cial size facility; applying standard air dispersion models and waste dilution criteria in order to predict exposure concen- tration; and evaluating the predicted concentration against known information on the toxicity of each contaminant. The identification of potential public health concerns requires not only the estimation of exposure levels but also the evaluation of the relative toxicity of each chemical species. Consequently, a review of the toxic properties of each iden- tified chemical substance or chemical group is required. At the conclusion of this evaluation each contaminant or chemi- cal group is categorized into one of four groups—potentially significant health problems, potentially minor health problem, no expected health problem, and those for which insufficient information is available. The results of this evaluation is then utilized to develop control systems and/or mitigative actions for the facility. In addition, the results are presented in the ER and discussed in terms of a cost/benefit framework. C016_007_r03.indd 998C016_007_r03.indd 998 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 999 With regard to occupational health, worker exposure to toxic substances is a potentially serious problem which could significantly lessen and limit the benefits of alternative fuel technology. As such, its implications must be carefully eval- uated in the planning and design phases of this project. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) contains basic worker protection guidelines and specific regulations which establish industry procedures for the protection of work- ers from exposure to potentially toxic or health impairing substances. However, the current regulations do not specifically address a coal gasification process and only limited operat- ing experience is available from existing gasification plants. Consequently, identification of potential occupational health problems must be done in an indirect manner through com- parison with other industries. This occupational hazard analysis yields identification of potential hazards, definition of possible control measures for as many of those hazards as possible, and identification of areas of concern where insufficient knowledge or control methodologies exist. In addition it provides input to: 1) design of worker protection programs to be imple- mented at the plant, 2) design of engineering controls to minimize work- er exposure to hazardous substances, for example, isolation of process steps, ventilation changes, pressure control, etc. Most of the procedural information, repeated from the arti- cle by Quig and Granger (1983) remains valid today. For a more quantitative treatment of the effluent emissions observed during plant operation the reader is referred to the study of Holt (1988) on the Cool Water plant and to the current Encyclopedia article, Coal Gasification Processes. PERMITTING FOR LANDFILL GAS ENERGY RECOVERY Purpose New York State Air Guide 41 (1996) provides guidance on the permitting of emissions from municipal solid waste landfills, including the use of landfill gas for energy recovery, flares and, also, passive venting, as per the following: Background Landfill gas (LFG) is generated by the decomposition of wastes in all municipal solid waste landfills, regardless of age or size. The total volume of gas generated is a direct function of the quantity of wet, decomposable refuse available; however, the rate of gas generation can vary greatly over time, depending on numerous factors (such as the volume of waste, the depth of the landfill and the amount of rain- fall the landfill receives), most of which are uncontrollable. Landfills the accept waste water treatment plant sludge for disposal tend to generate more LFG than those that do not. LFG is not generated until the available oxygen supply has been consumed and the decomposition process becomes anaerobic. The typical composition of LFG is essentially the same at all landfills and at all points within the landfill. The typical composition of LFG is: Methane 50–58% Carbon Dioxide 35–45% Hydrogen 1–2% Oxygen 1–2% Nitrogen 2–5% Non Methane Organic Compounds 3–5% (NMOCs) 1 LFG can, and should, be used for energy recovery. The energy content of LFG comes entirely from the methane component, which has a basic heating value of 1,000 Btu/standard cubic foot (scf). Since the nominal concentration of methane in LFG is approximately 55%, the heating value of raw LFG is approx- imately 550 Btru/scf, although this figure can, and will, vary somewhat. By comparison, natural gas is composed of 95% methane, giving it a basic heating value of 950 Btu/scf. At the majority of landfills in New York State, LFG is currently uncontrolled or passively vented to the atmosphere. Recovering and combusting such gas into useful energy will virtually eliminate harmful emissions from a fuel that is oth- erwise wasted. This also prevents the pollution associated with the use of fossil fuels (i.e., SO 2 ). If LFG is not com- busted, it will still escape to the atmosphere through the path of least resistance (diffused from landfill, vented or flared). Federal Regulations Air In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW for municipal solid waste landfills. These NSPS will affect landfills that began construction or modifi- cation after the standard was proposed (5/30/91) or existing landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987. It must be noted that this proposed rule is currently being developed. The rule is subject to change and it is possible that it will not be released. However, the guidelines contained in this proposed rule should be used in developing a permit for the use of landfill gas. Additional information regarding this proposed rule is included in Appendix A. In a recent Federal court case in Pennsylvania (Ogden Products Inc. vs. New Morgan Landfill Co.), the court ruled that the landfill in question is subject to New Source Review since it has the potential to emit more than 50 tons per year of volatile organic compounds. This decision, combined with the NSPS for landfills proposed by the EPA, will make all new landfills subject to the requirements of the CAA, partic- ularly if the landfill has the potential to emit volatile organic compounds at levels exceeding air quality standards. Hazardous Waste When LFG is recovered, it tends to cool, and some condensate is formed. It is stated in Section C016_007_r03.indd 999C016_007_r03.indd 999 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 1000 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 124 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 that if the aqueous or hydrocarbon phase of the condensate removed from the gas recovered from a landfill meets any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste (i.e., it fails the TCLP test), the condensate shall be considered hazardous waste and regulated accordingly. This section is an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but is not part of RCRA. Since this provision of SARA is not actually part of RCRA and there are no implementing regulations in 40 CFR, it may be bind- ing upon EPA, but RCRA-authorized states (such as New York) are not obligated to enforce its requirements. This issue could arise if LFG is to be recovered from a munici- pal landfill that meets the size and NMOC criteria cited in Appendix A and is included on the Superfund priority list of inactive hazardous waste sites. State Regulations Solid Waste 6 NYCRR Part 360 has requirements for the control of LFG during both the active life of the landfill and after the landfill is closed. While the landfill is in operation, the owner must periodically (i.e., quarterly) monitor for the presence of LFG at or above 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) at on-site structures and any off-site areas. When the landfill is closed, an LFG control system must be included in the closure plans to prevent the migration of concentrated LFG away from the site and to prevent damage to a landfill cap. LFG is lighter than air and will tend to rise causing the overlying cap to rise also. Generally the LFG is allowed to vent to the atmosphere through a porous gas vent layer that leads to gas vent risers spaced at approximately one vent per acre. Part 360-2.16 contains the regulations regarding LFG recovery facilities. These regulations require that anyone proposing an LFG facility obtain a permit to construct and operate the facility. The application for a permit must con- tain an engineering plan, engineering report and an opera- tion and maintenance plan. Hazardous Waste As cited above, some LFG condensate may exhibit hazardous waste characteristics. In an October 20, 1992 declaratory ruling applying to the Freshkills Landfill, the Department excluded landfill gas condensate from being regulated as a hazardous waste. This ruling was based on the grounds that the LFG was derived from a household waste and therefore excluded from hazardous waste regulation under New York State law. However, if the landfill received both munici- pal and industrial or hazardous waste, the condensate may be hazardous. The condensate would need to be analyzed using the TCLP method to determine if it is a hazardous waste. Air NYSDEC’s proposed Part 201 operating permit program (proposed to comply with the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) contains an exemption for LFG emissions vented directly (i.e., without a flare or energy recovery device) to the atmosphere that fall beneath major source thresholds as long as the facility is operating in compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. Such an exemption will not apply to landfills subject to NSPS or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. A number of landfills in New York State currently use flares or energy recovery for control of their LFG. These emission sources must have a permit from the Division of Air Resources. These permits are issued under 6 NYCRR Part 201. All energy recovery projects produce NO x in the combustion of the LFG. These projects must control NO x emissions as required under Part 227-2. For example, if a lean burn internal combustion engine running on LFG is used for energy recovery, the emission limit for NO x is 9.0 grams/brake horse power-hour (Part 227-2.4(f)). LFG recovery projects would be affected by either Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas (Part 231) regu- lations depending on the location of the project. Projects in nonattainment areas are likely to be affected by NO x and CO requirements (Note: the entire state is nonattain- ment for VOC and NO x because the state is in the ozone transport region). This is because recovering energy with a combustion unit will create NO x and CO that often require emission offsets to be obtain and the installation of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technology. The EPA has issued interim guidance stating that sources may be exempt from New Source Review (NSR) provided that the project is environmentally beneficial and there are no adverse air quality impacts. This exemption from NSR is referred to as a pollution control project. The EPA presently expects to complete rulemaking on an exclusion from major NSR for pollution control projects by mid 1996. However, in the case of nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the state or the source must provide offsetting emission reductions for any significant increase in a non-attainment pollutant from a pollution control project. Presently, 6NYCRR Part 231 allows a Pollution con- trol project exemption only at existing electric utility steam generating units (Ͼ25 megawatts of electrical output). Consequently, LFG projects which exceed the applicability thresholds, would have to obtain NO x offsets at a ratio of 1.3 or 1.15 to 1, depending on the location of the project (i.e., in a severe non-attainment area or in a moderate non-attainment area), and would be required to install LAER technology. Please note that this may change if the EPA determines that this type of project is eligible to become a pollution control project. Approach to Permitting—DAR When the economics of an energy recovery project using LFG are favorable, these projects are to be encouraged. The following is the hierarchy of preferred LFG uses: 1. Gas cleaning and upgrade to pipeline quality gas; 2. Energy recovery with gas pretreatment or conver- sion to a reusable chemical product; 3. Energy recovery without gas pretreatment; 4. Flares with high combustion efficiency (i.e., 98% or greater); 5. Vents, if no economically feasible use for the gas is available. C016_007_r03.indd 1000C016_007_r03.indd 1000 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 1001 The following procedure will be used for permitting of energy recovery facilities that utilize LFG: If the LFG Is Pretreated (i.e., if the constituents other than methane are removed from the gas), then permit as a combustion source with no further emission testing or ambient modeling necessary to satisfy toxic concerns. The permit should address traditional combustion contaminants such as NO x and CO. However, the permit application for this type of option must include a detailed description of the method(s) to be used for gas pretreatment. LFG can contain up to 50%, by volume, CO 2 (35–45%) and air toxics (1–2%). The pretreatment employed must remove these compounds before the LFG can be permitted for just the traditional combustion contaminants. Note that gas pretreatment will minimize toxic products of incomplete combustion and minimize system corrosion. If the LFG Is Not Pretreated, then permit as a combus- tion source and use the total concentration of NMOC emit- ted to address toxic issues. Note that if the gas is burned, either by a flare or energy recovery process, generally the air toxics will be destroyed. It will be easier and more effi- cient to regulate the NMOC (or total VOCs) than trying to identify and regulate all contaminants of LFG emissions, since they can vary greatly depending on the waste dis- posed at the landfill. The permit should address traditional combustion contaminants such as NO x and CO. The EPA proposed standard of 20 ppmvd NMOC should be used as BACT for the control of untreated LFG used as a combus- tion source. Periodic stack testing of the emissions is rec- ommended at the discretion of the permit writer. With regard to compliance with Part 231, the LFG facility may need to obtain NO x and CO offsets at the ratio applicable to its location (i.e., 1.3 or 1.15 to 1). This requirement may change if the EPA decides that LFG-type facilities are eligible for a pollution prevention exclusion. The permit reviewer will need to exercise judgment to determine if the LFG facility is required to obtain these offsets. As stated above, an LFG facility can be used for energy recovery. While a combustion turbine or internal combustion engine is not normally considered add-on pol- lution control devises, they do serve the same function as a flare, namely to reduce VOC emissions at the landfill with the incidental benefit of producing useful energy (energy that would otherwise be produced using higher polluting fossil fuels). For an LFG facility the reviewer should pro- ceed as follows: 1. Verify that the NO x increase has been minimized to the extent practicable; 2. Confirm (through modeling or other appropriate means) that the actual significant increase in NO x emissions will not violate the applicable NAAQS, PSD increment or adversely impact any air qual- ity related value; 3. Apply all otherwise applicable SIP and minor source and permitting requirements and ensure that NO x offsets are provided in an area in which nonattain- ment review applies to NO x emissions increases. Coordination within the Department The use of LFG will require coordination of efforts between the Divisions of Air Resources (DAR) and Solid and Hazardous Materials (DSHM). If a landfill meets the criteria cited above and the emissions from the site must be controlled, the proposed plan for this control should be submitted to both Divisions. DSHM should focus their review of the proposal, based on the requirements of Part 360-2.16. DAR should focus their review on evaluating and permitting the combustion sources that utilize the LFG, as outlined in the previous section. Both Divisions must keep in mind that LFG can be a valuable resource for energy generation and that using this resource will conserve the use of other fossil fuels and permit the re-use of material otherwise considered waste. Further, the respective project managers handling a particular facility’s permit applica- tion should maintain communication to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays on developing a permit for an LFG facility. APPENDIX A OF AIRGUIDE 41 NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW for municipal solid waste landfills. These proposed NSPS will affect landfills that began construction or modi- fication after the standard was proposed (5/30/91) or exist- ing landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987. It must be noted that this proposed rule is currently being developed. This proposed rule would require landfills to install active gas collection and control systems if they exceed both of the following criteria: • design capacity in excess of 2.500,000 Mg (2,700,000 tons); and • NMOC emission rate in excess of 50 Mg per year (50.05 tpy). Landfills closed prior to November 8, 1987 or having design capacities less than 2.5 million metric tons will be exempt once this rule is finalized. The NMOC emission rate is determined by the following equation: M NMOC = 2 L 0 R (1Ϫe – kt ) C NMOC (3.595 ϫ 10 – 9 ) where, M NMOC = mass emission rate for NMOC, Mg/yr L 0 = refuse methane generation potential, m 3 /Mg refuse (default value = 170 m 3 /Mg) R = average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr k = methane generation rate constant, 1/yr (default value = 0.05/yr) t = age of the land fill in years C016_007_r03.indd 1001C016_007_r03.indd 1001 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC [...]... 50 Mg/yr, the landfill owner must submit a design for, and install a collection and control system at the landfill This control system must be designed to reduce, in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW, the emission of NMOCs by 98% by weight Wehland and Earl (2004) present the inconsistencies in legal and enforcement interpretations of the PSD requirement for NSR major modifications and hence the... routine project as one that would cost less than 20% of the total cost of replacing an emitting unit The new rules and lack of enforcement were being challenged as of 2004 An alternative to the current regulations offered by the authors, “is to eliminate the NSR and incorporate plant-wide emission limits in operating permits.” They also recommend modeling and employing maximum achievable control technology...1002 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS CNMOC = concentration of NOMOC, ppmv as hexane (default value= 4,000 ppm) 3.595 ϫ 10Ϫ9= conversion factor (Note: In the absence of site specific data, use the given default values to determine NMOC emission rate.) Each landfill of design capacity greater than or equal to 2,500,000 Mg must... Report AP-5467, Feb (1988) Quig, R.H., Chem Eng Prog., 76, 47–54, March (1980) Quig, R.H and Granger, T., Encyc Of Env Sci & Eng Vol 1, 103–113 (1983) NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, Air Guide 41, p 1–5, March (1996) USEPA TITLE 40 CFR 52.01–52.2, P 9–55 US Government Printing Office, Washington DC: July 1, 2000 Ibid Title 40 CFR 51.166, p 167–186 Wehland C and L Earl,... landfill owner would submit this information to the NYSDEC as part of the Part 360 permit No further action regarding control of the landfill emission would be required The emission rate will be recalculated annually, with a report submitted to the Department This report must be submitted to the Department within 90 days of the issuance of a construction or operating permit or initial acceptance of. .. by which to determine the need for a PSD permit and the installation of BACT There is no need to install equipment if the modifications are of the routine maintenance, repair or replacement without increase in unit capacity For each of the four cases involving coal fired power plants in which decisions were reached prior to 2004, the court’s conclusions were different, and in some cases significantly... when determining the applicability of a modification, the NSPS rule of not increasing the maximum hourly emissions rate should be followed In the case, Tennessee Valley Authority vs U.S (11th Cir 2003), the decision by the circuit court side-stepped the primary differences and ruled against the EPA because of its use of an administrative procedures that deprived TVA of its rights to a hearing In October... establishing the routine nature of the maintenance by analyzing the all of the factors below for the projects: (1) budgeting and accounting, (2) purposes and costs, and the (3) net emissions increase In U.S vs Duke Energy (M.D N.C 2003), the district court ruled that EPA’s past practices in other cases require that industry-wide rather than the individual unit’s past practices were the criteria to be followed... the records of the affected unit, only, in determining if the maintenance was routine, but deferred its final determination to the more general NSR applicability In U.S vs Ohio Edison (S.D Ohio 2003), the court concluded that fair warning was given to the utility in the plain language of the CAA The court gave weight to establishing the routine nature of the maintenance by analyzing the all of the factors . LLC PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 997 Land and Waterway Use The purpose of the land and waterway use—demographics effort is to: 1) determine the existing land use of. PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS INTRODUCTION Planning for a major new facility must address the envi- ronmental impact of both the construction and operational phases of. Group, LLC 1000 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 124 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 that if the aqueous or hydrocarbon phase of the condensate