In a filing which incorporates 70 pages of general argumentation, along with a compact disc containing 90 separate exhibits, the Sierra Club and Audubon Society attack virtually every aspect of the state-issued air permit for the John W. Turk, Jr., Power Plant; from the availability of copies of the permit to the management of road dust at the 2,875-acre plant site near Fulton.

The filing before the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission is based in the argument that neither AEP/Southwestern Electric Power Company’s application and draft air permit nor the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality review of both comply with federal and state law.
“SWEPCO and ADEQ failed to adequately conduct the required full impacts analysis to determine whether this proposed source would cause or contribute to a violation of the national health-based ambient air quality standards (the NAAQS) or PSD increments (including visibility in the Caney Creek ‘Class I’ area,” the filing states.

Much of the technical overview of the filing stems from similar arguments made by private hunting clubs and landowners who control some 16,000 acres of property in the Fulton-McNab area, and who have opposed the construction of the $1.3 billion power plant before the Arkansas Public Service Commission, in federal court, and currently in an appeal before the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The filing makes four conceptual arguments, and argues that petitioners’ procedural rights before the ADEQ have been compromised, and argues extensively on technical grounds.

Fundamentally, the petitioners argue that ADEQ ignored flaws in SWEPCO’s analysis of its “best available control technology” design for air emissions, and the limits which that technology would provide, and makes the same point about proposed “maximum available control technology” analysis under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

“The Act requires MACT analysis for hazardous air pollutants, and ADEQ did not conduct adequate ‘floor’ and ‘beyond the floor’ MACT analysis, or consider alternatives to control these air pollutants at the Turk Plant,” the filing states.

The two groups also argue that the air permit, “...fails to assure compliance with, and practicable enforceability of, the emission limits and standards set forth in the Permit...”

And, the two groups argue that carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated, although they are not currently under federal law, but that, “....both the lack of CO2 regulation and ADEQ’s failure to even consider CO2 risks, and the threat to human health and the environment posed by uncontrolled emissions, are issues on which Petitioners seek review.”
The filing also argues that the permit comment process was flawed, “....making it unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, to comment on the Permit.”

However, the filing notes that ADEQ conducted two open comment periods and two public hearings on the permit, and that, “During the public comment periods, Petitioners timely submitted written comments to ADEQ on July 28, 2007, and again on September 23, 2008. All issues raised in this Petition have been previously raised in timely filed comments to ADEQ.”

They argue that because of the lack of information afforded them, ADEQ’s final determination process became “a moving target.”
The filing also attacks the scientific modeling data provided by SWEPCO, but argues that Sierra Club and Audubon could not adequately assess SWEPCO’s models because they were not provided with SWEPCO’s math.

“Most surprising, however, is that ADEQ could not have recreated their own Class II modeling analysis, thus limiting their review of the SWEPCO permit application,” the filing states. “It is inconceivable that ADEQ would issue a draft permit without having the actual modeling files for their review, but this is apparently what they chose to do. The modeling recreation and review was not possible, because they did not have any of the model inputs, including the meteorological data.”

The filing also attacks SWEPCO’s argument that it can maintain a 90 percent control efficiency for reducing dust on unpaved plant site roads through a water application process.

“This equation is meaningless for calculating water-application dust control efficiency unless SWEPCO specifies the necessary input parameters - such as hourly average daytime evaporation rate, average hourly daytime traffice rate, water application rate, and time between water applications,” the filing states.

The filing also attacks SWEPCO’s use of air dispersion modeling conclusions drawn from data collected at the Shreveport, La., airport, rather than the use of pre-construction on-site air monitoring.

“Two recent projects in Nevada, Granite Fox Power (near Gerlach) and Newmont Nevada (Boulder Valley), have collected at least one year of pre-construction meteorological data,” the filing states.
Through the remaining 50 pages of the document, the filing attacks the technical modeling used by SWEPCO extensively, as well as the basic technology for the coal-fired generation capability at the plant to conclude a litany of 192 separate objections.

SWEPCO spokesman Peter Main said Tuesday the company anticipates seeking an immediate review of the filing before the APCEC on Friday to allow the company to continue construction activity during the appeals process.