RSS Feed |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Judge upholds permits
Judge Stephanie Howells issued her Final Decision Friday in a 108-page ruling, seven months after the Friends of the Chattahoochee and Sierra Club (petitioners) appealed the permits, alleging that the permit was unlawful and invalid. On June 13 petitioners appealed the issuance of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration air quality permit issued May 14 by Dr. Carol Couch, Director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners opposed the permit asserting that it violates provisions of the Georgia Air Quality Act, the Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control and the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, petitioners asserted some of the emission limits contained in the permit were not stringent enough. They also asserted the impacts analysis performed by LS Power and the EPD were inadequate. Nine of 17 counts contained in the original petition were dismissed by Judge Howells, abandoned by the petitioners or denied as a matter of law. Judge Howells' ruling is a huge step toward clearing the way for the construction of the power plant, a joint project between LS Power and Dynegy Inc. Dynegy spokesman David Byford said in the Sunday Augusta Chronicle the company was pleased with the ruling and would continue lining up customers for the plant's electrical output and doing the engineering needed to start construction. "The judge's ruling validates our state air permit. We believe this is a positive step in bringing reliable, economic and environmentally compliant energy to Georgia," Byford stated. However, GreenLaw executive director Justine Thompson told the Atlanta Journal Constitution,"This decision is not a loss, it is only a setback. This case is far from over." Thompson stated the courts would be urged to halt construction until the matter is resolved. Addressing a chamber breakfast meeting Friday at Tarrer Inn in Colquitt, LS Power's Mike Vogt, project manager, stated it wouldprobably be "sometime this summer" before construction of the plant would begin. The petitioner's lawyers are expected to turn to the state's Superior Court to appeal Judge Howells' ruling. From there it could go to the Appellate Court, should that court agree to hear the case. Among the claims in the petition which were dismissed by "summary determination in favor of Longleaf and EPD" was the claim that the permit was invalid because it did not require the facility include the Best Available Technology (BACT) for capturing carbon dioxide. While man-made carbon dioxide has recently become the buzzword in global warming discussions, regulations for the capture of carbon dioxide have not been implemented because a viable technology for the capture of carbon dioxide has not been developed. The remaining eight counts challenged the permit's emission limitations for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist, alleging EPD failed to establish emission limitations in the permit that represents BACT. They further claimed that additional impacts analysis was inadequate and did not appropriately assess the risk to sensitive local vegetation. During the hearing process there was much dialog from the plants opponents that the company should be building an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant, a process which has been abandoned in virtually all other planned power plants. However, that claim was not raised by petitioners in their appeal. Another hotly discussed issue during the hearing process was the health threats of mercury emissions. However, the petition did not challenge the proposed mercury emission control technology or emission limits in the permit. Background The judge's ruling included the following background of the Longleaf power plant... Over five years ago, LS Power Development proposed a new coal-fired steam electric generating facility in the southeast United States to meet a growing demand for baseload power generating facilities. LS Power considered building a nuclear, coal, or natural gas facility. However, it ultimately decided on a coal-fired facility due to the abundant coal reserves that exist in the United States. In 2001, LS Power selected a site for the new Longleaf facility in Early County. This site was selected for several reasons. First, high voltage transmission lines cross the property. Second, two main-line railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX, are in close proximity to the site, and a short-line railroad connecting the Norfolk Southern and CSX lines runs along the property. Third, the site has two nearby water sources, the Chattahoochee River and the Georgia-Pacific paper mill. Finally, the land is suitable for the construction of the facility. In mid-2001, soon after the Early County site had been selected and option contracts had been obtained for the property, Longleaf met with the then-Director of EPD, Harold Reheis, and several EPD branch chiefs to discuss which permits would be necessary to construct the facility. EPD issued two directives at this meeting. First, the agency instructed Longleaf that any new coal-fired power plant permitted by EPD would have to be "one of the cleanest facilities in the country." Second, EPD stated that it would not issue a water withdrawal permit for any new facility in Early County unless that facility used recycled water. In response to the second directive, Longleaf approached Georgia-Pacific about re-using the wastewater from its nearby paper mill. Ultimately, Longleaf obtained a water withdrawal permit that requires it to use 42% pulp and paper wastewater, and 58% non-contact cooling water. On February 16, 2002, Longleaf submitted an air permit application to EPD's Air Protection Branch. EPD returned the application to Longleaf, however, with a letter setting out various omissions in the application that had to be corrected before the agency would review the application. Longleaf spent the next two years gathering information and revising its application to respond to the matters addressed in EPD's letter. Longleaf re-initiated the PSD permit application process in Feb. 2004, when the company submitted its Class II modeling protocol to EPD for approval. Longleaf submitted its second PSD permit application to EPD on Nov. 22, 2004. Over the course of the next year and a half, Longleaf modified, updated, and revised its application in response to requests and suggestions from EPD and EPA. On Sept. 15, 2006, EPD issued the Draft Permit and Preliminary Determination. Upon release of the Draft Permit and Preliminary Determination, public notice was placed in local newspapers in Early County and Dothan, Alabama, notifying the community of the proposed Longleaf facility and providing the public with an opportunity to submit written comments to EPD. EPD organized two public forums following the issuance of the Preliminary Determination and Draft Permit in order to solicit comments and address concerns regarding the Longleaf facility: a Question & Answer session Oct. 17, 2006; and a public hearing on Nov. 9, 2006. By the close of the public comment period, EPD had received hundreds of comments on the Draft Permit, including comments from Petitioners, EPA, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and citizens of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. On May 14, 2007, EPD issued the Permit to Longleaf for the construction and operation of the Longleaf facility. On that same date, EPD issued its Final Determination responding to the public comments that it had received concerning the Longleaf facility. In response to public and agency comments, and as a result of the correspondence and discussions between EPD and Longleaf, the final emission limitations for each of the four regulated pollutants at issue were more stringent than the limits originally proposed by Longleaf in its Nov. 22, 2004 application. The total cost for the Longleaf facility will be approximately two billion dollars, with $400 million devoted to pollution control equipment. The Longleaf facility will be a baseload generating facility. This means that it may provide electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of daily or seasonal changes in electricity demand.
The facility will be located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River in Early County, approximately 12 to 14 miles southwest of Blakely, Georgia, and is expected to serve customers in Georgia.
|
for larger version       |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
)
