VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT DETERMINATION Sample Clauses

VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT DETERMINATION. The fifth of five factors that must be considered for a BART determination analysis, as required by a 40 CFR part 51-Appendix Y, is the degree of Class I area visibility improvement that would result from the installation of the various options for control technology. This factor was evaluated for the Seminole Generating Station by using an EPA-approved dispersion modeling system (CALPUFF) to predict the change in Class I area visibility. The Division had previously determined that the Seminole Generating Station was subject to BART based on the results of initial screening modeling that was conducted using current (baseline) emissions from the facility. The screening modeling, as well as more refined modeling conducted by the applicant, is described in detail below. Wichita Mountain Wildlife Refuge, Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo and Hercules Glade are the closest Class I areas to the Seminole Generating Station, as shown in Figure 1 below. Only those Class I areas most likely to be impacted by the Seminole Generating Station were modeled, as determined by source/Class I area locations, distances to each Class I area, and professional judgment considering meteorological and terrain factors. It can be reasonably assumed that areas at greater distances and in directions of less frequent plume transport will experience lower impacts than those predicted for the four modeled areas. IMAGE NOT SHOWN Figure 1: Plot of Facility Location in relation to nearest Class I areas. OG&E Seminole Generating Station BART Evaluation September 28, 2009 Because of the results of the applicants screening modeling for the Seminole Generating Station, OG&E was required to conduct a refined BART analysis that included CALPUFF visibility modeling for the facility. The modeling approach followed the requirements described in the Division's BART modeling protocol, CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines (Alpine Geophysics, December 2005) with refinements detailed the applicants CALMET modeling protocol, CALMET Data Processing Protocol (Trinity Consultants, January 2008) Predicted visibility impacts from the Seminole Generating Station were determined with the EPA CALPUFF modeling system, which is the EPA-preferred modeling system for long-range transport. As described in the EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models (Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51), long-range transport is defined as modeling with source-receptor distances greater than 50 km. Because all modeled areas are located more than 50 km from t...
View SourceView Similar (3)

Related to VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT DETERMINATION

  • Quality Improvement The Parties must develop QI activities specifically for the oversight of the requirements of this MOU, including, without limitation, any applicable performance measures and QI initiatives, including those to prevent duplication of services, as well as reports that track referrals, Member engagement, and service utilization. Such QI activities must include processes to monitor the extent to which Members are able to access mental health services across SMHS and NSMHS, and Covered Service utilization. The Parties must document these QI activities in policies and procedures.

  • School Improvement The parties do hereby mutually agree that the school improvement process currently in effect will continue. Any plan developed by the committees shall not be in conflict with the master agreement or board policy.

  • Needs Improvement the Educator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.

  • CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT The Supplier shall at all times during the Framework Period comply with its obligations to continually improve the Goods and/or Services and the manner in which it provides the Goods and/or Services as set out in Framework Schedule 12 (Continuous Improvement and Benchmarking).