BREDL's Comments on
Carolina Power & Light's H.F. Lee and Cape
Fear Title V power plant permits
These are the first two CP&L
Title V permits to go to public hearing:
H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant
Goldsboro, Wayne County, NC
Facility ID No. 960017
Draft permit No. 01812T22
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Moncure, Chatham County, NC
Facility ID No. 1900063
Draft Permit No. 1057T17
We have reviewed the draft
permits and other state documents and found the
following:
1) Visible Emissions
Carolina Power & Light is out of compliance
with existing regulations at Cape Fear and H. F.
Lee. plants. The regulations which the
company fails to comply with include 15A NCAC 2D
.0524 New Source Performance Standards for Lee
combustion turbine units 10, 11, 12, and 13, and
15A NCAC 2D .0521 Control of Visible Emissions at
all units. These regulations have been
effective since January 3, 1988 and February 1,
1976, respectively. A Special Order by
Consent (EMC AQ 99-004) states, "The COMPANY
has discharged and continues to have the
potential to discharge visible emissions to the
atmosphere...in excess of the Visible Emissions
Standard"
The SOC states that excess visible emissions for
each plant will be allowed above the limits set
in 2D .0521 (40% six-minute opacity) and 40 CFR
60.42 for NSPS units (20% six-minute
opacity). The permit does not contain an
upper opacity limit which effectively allows a
100% opacity standard for any given six-minute
period under the exemption. The SOC contains
criteria which allow excess emissions (EE) and
continuous opacity monitor downtime of up to
8%. For 56 days a year the
plant may exceed the 40% / 20% six-minute
standard at up to 100% opacity under the formula
prescribed in the SOC. For nearly one-sixth
of total operation time both plants could
emit pollutants which would blacken the sky.
CP&L submitted an Integrated Resource Plan to
the NC Utilities Commission in 1995 (Docket No.
E-100, Sub 75B). The company stated
that all of its coal-fired electric plants would
have to meet the goals of the Clean Air Act
Amendments. Concerned with more stringent
emissions requirements, CP&L outlined a plan
"to maintain flexibility" and satisfy
requirements at the lowest cost:
"[D]ecisions on investments in ESP equipment
should be delayed as long as possible.
Second, decisions to switch to lower sulfur fuel
or to build a scrubber should also be delayed for
as long as possible." (CP&L
Integrated Resource Plan, p. 4-10, April 28,
1995)
The SOC is a result of such delays on the part of
CP&L. Through adjudication and
negotiation the company has carved a hole in
applicable standards which should not be included
in this permit.
The draft permit's state-enforceable requirements
for control of visible emissions under 15A NCAC
2D .0536 allow too much pollution. This
rule sets specific annual average opacity levels
for each generating unit at 18%, 11%, and 15% for
Lee boilers 1, 2, and 3 and 17% and 15% for Cape
Fear boilers 5 & 6, respectively.
However, an annual opacity average of 15%
would still allow more than 22 full days, three
weeks at 24 hours a day, of 90% opacity and 343
days of 10%
opacity.
2) Toxic Air Pollutants
A Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is now required
annually by the Environmental Protection Agency
for all coal-fired electric generating
stations. CP&L's seven plants released
32 million pounds of toxic compounds in 1998,
mostly air emissions. These emissions
result from the burning of thousands of tons of
coal. The releases include hydrochloric
acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, barium,
manganese, copper, chromium, zinc, arsenic,
nickel, ammonia, beryllium, chlorine, cobalt,
lead, selenium, mercury, and dioxin. Airborne
particulates consist of 1) solids which adsorb
hazardous air pollutants, and 2) droplets
of liquid pollutants including volatile organic
compounds. It is a toxic whirlwind which
must be reduced. Our initial review of
CP&L's permit application indicates draft
permit fails to adequately control hazardous air
pollutants.
3) Sulfur Dioxide
The draft permits stipulate a 24-hour block
averaging time for determination of compliance
with SO2 (and NOx) emissions limits.
Permitted combustion sources utilize continuous
emission monitoring systems and are required to
limit their emissions to 2.3 pounds
SO2/mmBtu. The use of a 24-hour block
averaging time allows spikes of high SO2
emissions to be averaged with lower levels
emitted during the averaging period. The
resulting average appears to comply with
the SO2 standard on paper, but higher actual
levels of sulfur dioxide would be allowed during
that 24 hours.
Continuous emission instruments record data on an
hourly basis. Therefore, calculations done with
this data after it is collected determine how
closely the source limits emissions. During
a 3-hour rolling average regime, emissions would
be limited to the same 2.3 pounds SO2/mmBtu
standard, but there is less opportunity for an
owner/operator to conceal transient high
emissions. An analogous situation: A car which
travels at 120 mph for one hour and 50 mph for 23
hours is averaging 53 miles per hour. The
danger is great during that one hour, but no
speeding law would be broken if the average speed
was the standard.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 identified
sulfur dioxide and other criteria pollutants as
major air pollution problems. The 24-hour
health standard for sulfur dioxide is 365 ug/m3
but poor atmospheric mixing and air inversions
can increase concentrations in populated areas to
dangerous levels in a matter of hours. The risk
to the very young, the elderly, and to people
with heart or lung disease is especially serious.
4) Particulates
The magic bullet to knock out Title V permitting
may be CP&Ls use of current trimming--the
ramping down of voltage to the electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs). In an inspection
report Steve Hall of the Raleigh Regional Office
of DAQ reported that Cape Fear Unit #6 has energy
management software which decreases ESP voltage
as opacity decreases. CP&L plans to install
this software on Cape Fear Unit #5.
Sometime before September 1997 CP&L began
using current trimming. The practice was
discovered by Brad Newland of the Wilmington
Regional Office of DAQ. On September 29,
1997 he wrote to CP&L, "Annual
stack tests are performed on each of your
facilities' boilers to demonstrate compliance
with particulate emissions limits. During these
tests the ESPs were documented to be operating at
full power, apparently not controlled by the
power-minimization software. This did not
appear to be the case when the boilers were
observed during subsequent inspections...."
We at BREDL assert that the CP&L Cape Fear
plant, and possibly the Lee plant, is in
violation of particulate emission
standards. The NC DAQ cannot permit a
continuing violation.
Lou and Janet Zeller
April 11, 2000
Action Alert:
Public Hearing on CP& L Title V permits April
18, 2000, 7:00 PM , Raleigh, NC
Title V
Fact Sheet
BREDL
comments on other Title V permits
|