Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman 

Toby Baker, Commissioner 

Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director 15 JUL 13 PH 5: 24 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

July 10,2015 

Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -:- Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

Docket Nos. 2014-1262-SIP 

2014-0501-RUL 

2014-0707-RUL 

Project Nos. 2013-015-SIP-NR 

2013-048-115-AI 

2013-049-117-AI 

On June 3, 2015, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted 

revisions to the St.ate Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control of ozone air pollution for the 

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area. 

The Commission adopted the repeal of §115-417; new §115.410 and §115-411; and 

amendments to §§115.10, 115.110- 115.112, 115.114, 115.115, 115.117- 115.119, 115.121- 115.122, 

115.125- 115.127, 115.129, 115.139, 115.215, 115.219, 115.229, 1115.239, 115-359, 115-415, 

115-416, 115-419, 115-420 - 115-423, 115-425- 115-427, 115-429, 115-440- 115.442, 115-446, 

115-449- 115.451, 115-453, 115.459- 115-461, 115-469, 115-471, 115-473, 115-479, and 115.519 in 

30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile 

Organic Compounds; the amendments to §§117.10, 117.403, 117-400, 117-410, 117-423, 

117-425, 117-430, 117-435, 117-440, 117-445, 117-450, 117-454, 117-456, 117.1303, 117.1310, 

117.1325, 117.1335, 117.1340, 117.1345, 117.1350, 117.1354, 117.8000, 117-9030, 117-9130, 

117.9800, and 117.9810; the repeal of §§117.200, 117.203, 117.205, 117.210, 117.215, 117.223, 

117.225, 117.230, 117.235, 117.240, 117.245, 117.252, 117.254, 117.256, 117.1100, 117.1103, 

117.1105, 117.1110, 117.1115, 117.1120, 117.1125, 117.1135, 117.1140, 117.1145, 117.1152, 117.1154, 

117.1156, 117.9010, and 117.9110; and new §117-405 and §117.452 in 30 TAC Chapter 117, 

Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Oxides; and corresponding revisions to the SIP. The 

amendments to 30 TAC §§117.210(c), 117.225, 117.410(d), 117-425, 117.1110(b), 117.1125, 

117.1310(b), and 117.1325, correspond to portions of the existing rule previously excluded 

from the EPA-approved Texas SIP, are not being submitted to EPA as revisions to the SIP. 

Similarly, adopted new §117-405(d) will not be submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. 

The Commission also adopted the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Attainment 

Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision. The D FW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard AD SIP 

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512·239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov 

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.govjcustomersurvey 

pnnted on recycled paper us1ng vegetable-based mk 
revision incorporates the Chapter 115 and 117 rulemakings to fulfill reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) requirements for all control techniques guidelines (CTG) emission 

source categories and all non-CTG major sources ofVOC and NOx as required by FCAA, 

§172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2). The state has previously adopted Chapter 115 VOC and Chapter 117 

NOx rules to satisfy RACT requirements for sources in the nine-county DFW area as part of 

the SIP for the 1997 eight-hour ozone stan9,ard. The rulemakings satisfy RACT requirements 

for Wise County and for any sources identified in the DFW area that are not already subject to 

the existing rules. 

This SIP revision includes the work completed to date to demonstrate that the DFW area will 

attain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by 2018. The SIP revision also commits to 

development of a 2017 AD SIP revision for the DFW 2008 eight-hour ozone nonattainment 

area for future submittal to the EPA. The 2017 AD SIP revision would include a 

photochemical modeling analysis, a weight of evidence analysis, a reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) analysis, and a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB). 

Because no additional analysis was needed to complete the contingency plan for attainment, 

Section 4.9, Contingency Plan, was revised to reflect a 2017 attainment year. 

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete 

record of the public hearings, and the accompanying order. I look forward to your 

expeditious approval of these SIP revisions. 

Sincerely, 

~.._.U~ct.v...r 

~.Shaw, Ph.D., P.E. 

Chairman 

BWS/alb 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas 

Mr. John Zerwas, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office of the Governor 

Mr. Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearings 

January 15 and 22, 2015 

Concerning Revisions to 30 T AC 

Chapter 117 Control of Air Pollution from 

Nitrogen Compounds 

NOx Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Project No. 2013-049-117-AI 
INTRODUCTION 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) held public hearings in 

Arlington on January 15, 2015 and in Austin on January 22, 2015, to receive testimony regarding 30 

TAC Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds; Chapter 117, Control of 

Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan. 

This hearing record contains revisions to Chapter 117, which implements reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) for all major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Dallas- Fort Worth 2008 eighthour ozone moderate nonattainment area as required by Federal Clean Air Act, § 172( c)( 1) and 

§182(f). The rulemaking extends implementation of RACT to major sources of NOx located in newly 

designated Wise County. Although not necessary to satisfy RACT requirements, the rulemaking 

provides compliance flexibility to testing requirements of Chapter 117 for temporary boilers and 

process heaters, and it clarifies the definition of electric power generating systems to distinguish rule 

requirements for independent power producers located in all Texas ozone nonattainment areas. 

The comment period was originally set to close on January 30, 2015 but was extended to February 

11, 2015. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing 

record contains a complete record of the public hearings and is divided into the following four 

sections: 

o Public Notification and Proposal 

o Written and Oral Testimony 

o Evaluation of Testimony 

o Staff Recommendations/Order 
Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park 35 

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, please contact Javier Galvan at (512) 239-1492. 
TESTIMONY 
Reference Number 

W-1 

W-2 

W-3 

W-4 

W-5 

W-6 

INDEX OF WRJTTEN TESTIMONY 

Submitted by 

Robert E. Hurt and Steve Willis, P.E., 

Dal-Tile Corporation 

Kimberly Mireles, Luminant 

Dick Schoech 

Leslie Witherspoon, Solar Turbines Incorporated 

Thure Cannon, Texas Pipeline Association 

Guy Donaldson, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 
Dai-Tile Corporation W-1 

Public Comments 

Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

In response to TCEQ Agency request for comments on proposed changes to 30 TAC §117, DaiTile hereby submits the following comments on Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI. 

"The commission is also requesting comments during this rulemaking proposal on the NOX monitoring 

requirements in existing §117.440(c) for ceramic kilns. It has come to the attention of the commission 

that issues associated with NOX monitoring using a CEMS or PEMS may exist for owners or operators of 

ceramic kilns. Existing subsection (c) requires owners or operators of a ceramic kiln to install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a CEMS or PEMS to monitor exhaust NOX. The commission therefore requests 

comments on alternatives, such as periodic testing, to the existing provisions of the NOX monitoring 

requirements of existing §117.440(c) for ceramic kilns." 

Dai-Tile owns and operates ceramic tile kilns at our facility in Sunnyvale, TX. We affirm that 

there are numerous issues associated with NOx monitoring using a CEMS or PEMS. Dai-Tile 

requests that 11Ceramic kilns" be removed from the named sources in §117.440 (c}(1}(F). Their 

inclusion requires the use of a CEMS/PEMS to demonstrate ongoing compliance with NOx 

limitations. As detailed below, we believe ongoing compliance is more accurately and properly 

demonstrated with periodic stack testing instead of the use of CEMS or PEMS. 

The following specific comments are provided in support of the request to remove ceramic tile 

kilns as a specific named source in §117.440 (c){1}(F). 

1. As currently drafted, §117.440 {c}(1}(F) would apply to only one facility in the State of 

Texas with (/ceramic kilns", Dai-Tile's Sunnyvale plant. These ceramic kilns already all 

use low-NOx burners and have relatively lower NOx emissions compared to the other 

named sources. 

2. §117.440 (c)(1)(F) required the Sunnyvale facility to install, operate, maintain and 

calibrate CEMS to monitor NOx exhaust from each of the ceramic tile kilns. This facility 

has had CEMS units installed on the kilns for 5 years. Due to naturally occurring trace 

elements in the raw materials used to produce ceramic tile, the nature of the exhaust 

from the ceramic kilns results in the aggressive corrosion of the CEMS units. This has 

resulted in very high degree of maintenance and repairs, coupled with significant 

downtime of the CEMS units. It also has resulted in high calibrations costs, with each 

unit needing calibration at an average frequency of 3 times per week. Because of its 

highly corrosive nature, the exhaust gas monitored by the CEMS greatly affects the 

accuracy and reliability of the units and the data from them cannot be considered high 

quality due to the amount of downtime and frequency of calibration adjustments. 
Dai-Tile Public Comments- Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

February 10, 2015 - Page 2 of 3 

3. The requirement to use CEMS/PEMS to monitor NOx exhaust from ceramic kilns: 

a. Does not provide any public benefit. 

i. The CEMS do not provide an "exact" amount of emissions. The NOx 

emissions are estimated based on exhaust flow and the use of a generic 

factor. Therefore, demonstrating NOx compliance based on CEMS is only 

an estimate. Periodic testing, using specific emission factors coupled with 

production monitoring, provides as good or better continuous 

demonstration of compliance. 

b. Does not provide enhanced protection of the environment. 

i. In 5 years, the current CEMS units have not indicated any exceedance. 

ii. The ceramic tile kilns are designed to use a fixed and constant combustion 

air flow system. Once the kilns are heated to operating temperature, 

during normal operations the burners are never turned off until the kilns 

are completely shut down. The only time the kilns are completely shut 

down is if there will be no production for more than one week. This could 

be as a result of scheduled major maintenance or product inventory 

adjustment. When in operation (typically over 350 of 365 days/year), the 

tile feed rate is set at 100% of the kiln capacity to maximize production 

and energy efficiency. As a result, the NOx emissions have very little 

variability. Periodic testing provides as good or better continuous 

demonstration of compliance 

iii. Previous testing of emissions from the ceramic tile kilns at Dai-Tile have 

demonstrated that they already fully comply with the emission limitations 

specified for ceramic kilns at §117.410 (a) {7)(B)(iii). 

c. Does not provide efficient and equitable administration of NOx emission 

standards. 

i. The time and expense of installing and operating CEMS/PEMS puts Dai-Tile 

at an economic disadvantage compared to other tile manufacturers as it is 

the only location in the nation required to install CEMS/PEMS. As noted 

above, these costs have not resulted in the reduction of any NOx 

emissions. 

ii. During the 5 years of operation, the required contracted annual CEMS 

support costs were $65,000 per year, plus an additional estimated annual 

cost of $80,000 for calibration, maintenance, and repair. Due to the 

numerous previous and ongoing problems, the manufacturer has stated 

the CEMS units require replacement at a cost of $515,000. 
Oai-Tile Public Comments- Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

February 10, 2015- Page 3 of 3 

4. The use of periodic testing provides as good as, or better continuous demonstration of 

compliance as CEMS/PEMS for ceramic kilns. 

a. It is noted that these kilns meet the qualifications for the use of low-Mass 

Emission methodology in lieu of CEMS that is allowed by the US EPA as 

stipulated in 40 CFR 75.19. In these regulations, EPA recognizes that it is 

appropriate for smaller units to use periodic testing in lieu of CEMs/PEMs. 

5. In other sections of the rule, specifically §117.403, units having a maximum heat input 

capacity of less than 40 million BTU/hr are totally exempted from regulation. The heat 

input capacity of the largest kiln at Dai-Tile Sunnyvale is only 28 million BTU/hr. 

6. After being removed from 117.440 (c}(1}(F), ceramic kilns will still be subject to the 

threshold and monitoring requirements of 117.440 (c}(1}(A). 

For the above reasons, Dai-Tile respectfully requests that the inconsistent and seemingly 

arbitrary inclusion of ceramic tile kilns in §117.440 (c}(1}(F) be removed 

Dai-Tile also requests modification of §117.8000 (c)(6). As worded, calorific value of the fuel 

must be determined using one of two specified ASTM methods. 

"(6) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method 01945-91 or ASTM Method 03588-93 for 

fuel composition; ASTM Method 01826-88 or ASTM Method 03588-91 for calorific value; or alternate 

methods as approved by the executive director and the United States Environmental Protection Agency" 

Dai-Tile only uses pipeline quality natural gas supplied by the local distribution company. As such, 

we do not have any control over the test methods that may be used by the supplier. It is requested 

that the language of this section be modified to clarify that calorific values provided by the natural 

gas supplier also are fully compliant with the requirements. 

Respectfully submitted: 

02/10/15 

Robert E Hurt, Director-Environmental Health & Safety, Dai-Tile Corporation Date 

02/10/15 

Steve Willis, PE, Senior EHS Engineer, Dai-Tile Corporation Date 
Luminant 

February 11, 2015 

Kris Hogan 

MC 205, Office of Legal Services 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Kimberly 0. Mireles 

Voce Prestdent 

Enlllronmental Services 

klmberty.mtreles@lumtnant.com 

W-2 

!.uml!umt 

1601 Bl)lan Street 

Dallas, TX 75201 

f 214.875.8382 

c 214.354.5419 

I' 214.875.8699 

Re: Comments of Luminant on the Proposed NOx RACT Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

Dear Mr. Hogan: 

On December 26, 2014, a proposal to amend the NOx RACT Rules for DFW 2008 Eight Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area rules in Chapter 117 of the Texas Administrative Code was published in the 

Texas Register. The proposed rulemaking would revise Chapter 117 to implement RACT for all major 

sources of NOX in the DFW area as required by FCAA, §172{c){1) and §182{f). Luminant appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality {TCEQ) proposed rule. 

Luminant supports the proposed addition of 30 TAC §117.1335(d){6). Luminant disagrees that 

the proposed clarification is the best interpretation of the rules; however, we agree that this clarification 

is one interpretation that could be made. Though we disagree on the best interpretation, Luminant is in 

favor of the proposed changes because it will provide regulatory certainty. Specifying the requirements 

through a rulemaking process will minimize uncertainty regarding the appropriate calculation 

methodology and reduce the likelihood of changes in the future without a rulemaking proces_s. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and do not hesitate to contact 

me at 214-875-8382 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Kimberly Mireles 

VP-Environmental Services 

Luminant 
Kris Hogan 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

subject: 

Follow Up Flag: 

flag Status: 

02/02/2015 

04:41PM 

Monday, February 02, 2015 4:42 PM 

2013-049-117-AI 

Follow up 

Completed· 

This email is a confirmation of the comment that was submitted for the referenced rule making. 

First Name: Dick 

Last Name: Schoech 

Company/Organization: 

E-mail Address: a 

Street Address:•••~~~~••••• 

City:··-

StateZipCode:--

Phone Number: 

Fax Number: 

Rule: 2013-049-117-AI 

Comments: 

W-3 

I attended the January TCEQ hearing on revisions to the TCEQ plan for clean DFW air and it was DEPRESSING. Many 

people attended and gave expert and detailed testimony on the problems with the plan and how it would have little 

impact on cleaning the air in the DFW area, which has the 8th dirtiest air of US cities. So I need not go into details. You 

have all the details you need on file from that hearing. Not one TCEQ board member was present, only paid staff. I can 

see why no board members showed up, since All testimony was that the plan revisions were totally inadequate as they 

have been over the last years. We had medical societies & pediatric physicians groups complaining about kids with 

asthma. There were old ladies on ventilators who could hardly breath complaining about the high cost of all their 

medications and lung equipment. Everyone was pleading for relief from the bad air and saying the TCEQ plan was 

totally inadequate. Its eems we are doomed to suffer if our air is left to TCEQ. I came away thinking that TCEQ needed a 

big lawsuit to get its attention since folks making money from dirty air seem to have bought everyone with power to do 

something to clean up our air. Testimony pointed out that solutions are known and are relatively easy and inexpensive. I 

came away from the hearing feeling that I was in Beijing China where the air is dirty and officials are corrupt. I just wish 

some TCEQ board members and politicians would have come to face the people being poisoned by our bad air. Our air 

and this plan's revisions are depressing. 

1 
Solar rbines Solar Turbines Incorporated 

A Caterpillar Company 9330 Sky Park Court 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Tel: (858) 694-1616 

Submitted Electronically 

February 6, 2015 

Derek Baxter 

MC205 

Office of Legal Services 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

cc: Javier Galvan, Javier.Galvan@tceq.texas.gov 

RE: Chapter 117, Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds 

NOX RACT Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Docket No. 2014-0707-RUL 

Rule Project No. 2013-049-117 -AI 

Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed additional Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for 

major sources of NOx in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) non-attainment area. 

W-4 

Solar is a manufacturer of industrial combustion turbines (1-22 MW). Solar's fleet includes 

more than 14,000 combustion turbines in 98 countries. Our domestic fleet consists of over 

7000 combustion turbines in power generation, pipeline compressor, and mechanical drive 

applications. 

Solar asks that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) consider our 

comments which address the following topics. 

1. Appropriate RACT level for <50 MMBtu/hr Combustion Turbines 

2. Underestimated Compliance Cost Estimate 

3. Inadequate Timeline for Compliance 

Appropriate RACT level for <50 MMBtu/hr Combustion Turbines 

Solar suggests the lower combustion turbine threshold be set at <50 MMBtu/hr (HHV) and 

incorporate the emissions levels ( 150 ppm NOx) for modified/reconstructed turbines found 

in 40 CFR 60 subpart KKKK. 
Please refer to the EPA Docket for Subpart KKKK (OAR- 2004- 0490) for documentation 

and discussion as to why a 50 MMBtu/hr (HHV) size threshold and the accompanying NOx 

emissions level are appropriate for "existing" combustion turbines. 

The 4500 hp level in the proposed RACT is similar to the suggested 50 MMBtu/hr (HHV) 

level found in subpart KKKK. Another suggestion is for TCEQ to maintain the 4500 hp level 

and adopt the subpart KKKK emissions levels for modified/reconstructed combustion 

turbines to represent RACT for the small source category. 

The proposed RACT levels found in 117 .405(b )(3)( a) assume dry low NOx or water/steam 

injection emissions capabilities which are not commercially available on many combustion 

turbine models/ratings <50 MMBtu/hr (HHV). 

The current NSPS is subpart KKKK. The applicable NSPS when the majority of the 

potential RACT impacted units were installed was subpart GG. The emission values 

proposed in the RACT are stricter than the Subpart KKKK levels for modified/reconstructed 

units. The modified/reconstructed category is meant to represent "existing units", 

essentially the units impacted by the proposed RACT. The NSPS for modified/ 

reconstructed combustion turbines, after significant study by the EPA, was set at emissions 

levels that existing units are capable of meeting. 

Initial review indicates four Solar Turbines in Wise County will be impacted by the proposed 

RACT. For two of turbines Solar has a technical solution [SoloNOx (Dry Low NOx) retrofit] 

to meet the proposed RACT level. The cost of the retrofit is significant and would probably 

not meet the definition of "reasonable". See next section of this letter. For the other two 

impacted units, at their turbine rating, there is no technical solution. In order to comply with 

the proposed RACT standard the units would have to be uprated to a higher rating (e.g. 

more horsepower) and then retrofit with SoloNOx. Such an exercise, while technically 

possible, incurs significant capital costs associated with turbine, package, and control 

system modifications. It's likely that the corresponding compressor or driven equipment 

would also need upgrading/replacement/modification. Also, the additional horsepower may 

trigger New Source Review (NSR) or state permitting, trigger FERC permitting issues, 

and/or result in the site running at a lower, less efficient load. 

Underestimated Compliance Cost Estimate 

The proposal states that "No capital costs due to retrofits or combustion modifications are 

expected for these same 11 units in order for the units to meet the proposed NOx emission 

specifications for industrial gas turbines." (Page 64) This statement is not true, at a 

minimum, for the four Solar Turbines units. On the four Solar Turbines that are expected to 

be impacted by the proposal, significant capital costs would be incurred. The proposed 

RACT rule estimates $1.456MM for capital and testing costs for all152 affected sources in 

Year 1 ($2.71 MM for the five year period, $881 K for total capital costs) (Page 60). Our 

estimates indicate that it will cost over $1.456MM (possibly as high as $2-4MM) for each 

combustion turbine to comply with the proposed RACT. 

A detailed site/source specific RACT cost estimate is imperative to assess the cost 

effectiveness of the proposed RACT on each affected unit in Wise County. Such an 

Solar Turbines Incorporated 

TCEQ DFW RACT Comment Letter 

Page 2 of3 
analysis may show significantly higher costs than the $1563/ton NOx estimated and be 

considered unreasonable with respect to RACT. 

Inadequate Timeline for Compliance 

For any units that will be impacted by the proposed RACT that will incur a significant capital 

expense, the January 1, 2017, compliance date is grossly inadequate. Solar suggests, at a 

minimum, adding an alternative compliance schedule option to the proposed rule. Solar 

suggests the TCEQ consider language similar to the following for a phased-in compliance 

schedule. A phased-in compliance schedule will allow industry the time to develop and 

implement the technology upgrades necessary to comply with the proposal. 

A. Owners or operators of all stationary sources subject to RACT shall submit an 

emissions control plan by (insert date 12 months after effective date of rule). 

B. All owners/operators shall demonstrate and maintain compliance with the applicable 

provision of this RACT in accordance with the following compliance schedules: 

1. Operators with no more than two units shall demonstrate and maintain compliance by 

the earlier of the following dates: 

a. (insert date 4 years after the effective date of rule) 

b. Within 90 days following the next major overhaul on or after 

____ (insert date18 months after the effective date of rule). 

2. Operators with more than two units subject shall demonstrate and maintain compliance 

in accordance with the following compliance schedule: 

a. Within 90 days following the next major overhaul, any unit that is overhauled on or 

after (insert date 18 months after the effective date of rule), and 

b. By (insert date 30 months after the effective date of rule) at least 25% of the 

total number of units subject, and 

c. By (insert date 42 months after the effective date of rule), at least 60% of the 

total number of units subject, and 

d. By (insert date 54 months after the effective date of rule), 100% of the total 

number of units subject. 

Please feel free to contact me at 858.694.6609 if you have any questions or need any 

additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Solar Turbines Incorporated 

Leslie Witherspoon 

Manager Environmental Programs 

witherspoon leslie h@solarturbines.com 

C:\LESLIE\CUST_QS AND PROJECTS\2014\14-066 WISE COUNTY- TCEQ\COMMENT LETTER\SOLAR COMMENT LETTER.DOC 

Solar Turbines Incorporated 

TCEQ DFW RACT Comment Letter 

Page 3 of3 
7T 

Texas Pipeline Association 

Thure Cannon 

President 

February 11, 2015 

Submitted via 

http:llwwwl.tceq.texas.govlrules/ecomments/ 

Derek Baxter 

Office of Legal Services 

MC205 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

W-5 

Re: Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI; Chapter 117, Control of Air 

Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds; NOx RACT Rules for the DFW 

2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Dear Mr. Baxter: 

The Texas Pipeline Association ("TPA") submits the following comments on 

TCEQ's proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117, which would implement reasonably 

available control technology ("RACT") requirements for major sources of nitrogen 

oxides ("NOx") in the DFW 2008 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area, which includes 

Wise County. TP A is an organization composed of 50 members who gather, process, 

treat, and transport natural gas and hazardous liquids materials through intrastate 

pipelines in Texas. TPA's members would be affected by this proposal because TPA 

members currently own and operate sources in the DFW area, including Wise County, 

which will be affected by these rules or in the future may construct new sources that will 

be subject to these new RACT provisions. 

I. Introduction. 

In this rulemaking, TCEQ proposes to extend implementation of NOx RACT 

requirements to certain major sources of NOx located in Wise County. The types of 

sources in Wise County that are impacted by the new RACT requirements are 1) 

industrial, commercial or institutional process heaters; 2) stationary internal combustion 

gas-fired engines; and 3) stationary gas turbines. 1 TPA supports TCEQ's decision not to 

extend the minor source NOx RACT provisions to minor sources in Wise County. TP A 

is concerned, however, about the economic infeasibility of controlling certain types of 

1 See 30 TAC § 117.400(b) (proposed). 

604 West 14th Street, Austin, Texas 78701 

phone: (512) 478-2871 fax: (512) 473-8476 Email: thure.cannon@texaspipelines.com 
rich-bum ("RB") reciprocating internal combustion engines and gas-fired turbines in 

Wise County. In addition, in the case of gas-fired turbines, RACT may not be technically 

feasible. 2 

ll. Contrary to TCEQ's cost estimates, the cost to control some gas-fired 

RB engines in Wise County is not economically feasible. 

As stated above, TCEQ seeks in this rulemaking to extend NOx RACT 

requirements to process heaters, internal combustion engines, and turbines in Wise 

County. RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility. 3 TPA does not believe that certain 

controls proposed by TCEQ for Wise County sources would be economically feasible, 

and therefore those controls would not constitute RACT 

The proposed rules would require all gas-fired RB engines located at major 

sources in Wise County to be controlled to 0.50 glhp-hr. 4 TCEQ expects that 

nonselective catalytic reduction ("NSCR") with an air-to-fuel ratio controller will be the 

primary control technology for gas-fired RB engines to meet this specification.5 In some 

cases, TCEQ states, "the addition of a secondary catalyst module may be required to meet 

the proposed emission specification."6 TCEQ concludes that 0.50 glhp-hr represents 

RACT for gas-fired RB engines "based on the low cost and wide-spread demonstrated 

effectiveness ofNSCR with meeting this controllevel."7 

We respectfully disagree with TCEQ's analysis. One TPA member has analyzed 

its fleet of gas-fired RB engines in Wise County and has determined that six of those 

engines, already controlled by catalyst, cannot meet the specified emission rate of 0.50 

glhp-hr even with additional catalyst added. The type of engine at issue is a 1680 hp 

Waukesha L 7044 GSI engine. Without a GE Waukesha emPact Emission Control 

System conversion kit at the cost of$90,000 per engine (i.e, $540,000 in total for this one 

TPA member), this engine type cannot be guaranteed to meet the specified emission rate 

of0.50 g/hp-hr. 

2 TPA would note that both it and the State ofTexas have sued EPA over the designation of Wise 

County as nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. See Mississippi Commission on 

Environmental Quality v. EPA, No. 12-1309 in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit. TPA supports TCEQ's proposal to repeal the NOx RACT provisions applicable to Wise 

County if the nonattainment designation of Wise County is overturned by the court. 

3 See 30 Tex. Reg. 10337 (Dec. 26, 2014), citing44 Fed. Reg, 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). 

4 See 117.405(b)(2)(A) (proposed). 

5 39 Tex. Reg. 10341. 

6 39 Tex. Reg. 10341. 

7 39 Tex. Reg. 10341. 

2 
The cost per ton of NOx reduced for controlling this type of engine to meet the 

0.50 glhp-hr specification would be approximately $11,100, 8 compared to TCEQ's 

estimate of $1,563 cost per ton ofNOx reduced for affected units. 9 Thus the real-world 

cost that would be incurred to implement the proposed controls is far above the cost that 

TCEQ anticipated, and is not economically reasonable or feasible. 

TP A urges TCEQ to re-evaluate RACT for this type of RB engine. In the 

proposed rules, TCEQ has established specific emission rates for lean bum engines based 

on their make and model. 10 It would be reasonable for TCEQ to do the same for RB 

engines as well. Accordingly, we would urge TCEQ to establish RACT for the 

Waukesha engines described above as 1.0 g/hp-hr. That emission rate is reasonably 

achievable for this type of engine by the addition ofNSCR catalyst. We would be happy 

to discuss this cost analysis with TCEQ staff before the RACT rules are finalized. 

m. Contrary to TCEQ's analysis, some gas-fired turbines will require 

retrofits or modifications to meet the proposed emission 

specifications. 

In proposed Section ll7.405(b )(3), TCEQ would require gas-fired turbines to 

meet a specified emissions rate depending on the horsepower of the turbine. In the 

preamble, TCEQ states that turbines will be required to install fuel meters and perform 

initial compliance tests, but that no capital costs due to retrofits or combustion 

modifications are expected for these units to meet the proposed NOx emission 

"fi . 11 spect 1catwns. 

This is incorrect. In fact, one TPA member has reviewed its fleet of gas-fired 

turbines located in Wise County and has determined that in order to meet the proposed 

emission specification, two of its turbines will require retrofit technology - at an 

estimated cost ranging from $1.5 to $4 million per turbine. Assuming a cost at the low 

end of these two estimates of $2 million, the cost per ton for emissions reductions would 

be $38,800, an amount that far exceeds TCEQ's anticipated costs of compliance and that 

is not economically feasible, as RACT requires, and far exceeds TCEQ's best available 

control technology ("BACT") cost/ton reasonableness standard. 

For other turbines, it is simply not technically feasible to perform a retrofit so that 

the turbine meets the proposed emission specifications. This is made clear in comments 

filed in this docket by Solar Turbines Inc. ("Solar"). Solar states that, for two impacted 

units in Wise County, there is no feasible technical solution to meet the proposed 

emission limits. Solar states that, in order to comply with the RACT standard proposed 

s The attached spreadsheet (Exhibit 1) demonstrates that the cost per ton of NOx reduced for 

these engines would be over $11,000. 

9 39 Tex. Reg. 10350. 

10 See 30 TAC § 117.405(b)(2)(B) (proposed). 

11 39 Tex. Reg. 10351. 

3 
by TCEQ, the units would have to be uprated to a higher rating and then retrofit with 

SoLoNOx. While this is technically possible, it would entail significant capital costs 

associated with turbine, package, and control system modification; and it would approach 

a complete source replacement, which is contrary to the definition of RACT. As TCEQ 

states in the preamble, "[a] control level cannot represent RACT for a 'particular source' 

if it is more cost-effective to replace that source with an entirely new source in order to 

meet the emission limitation."12 

Here again, TCEQ's cost estimates are far too low and TCEQ's view as to the 

technological feasibility of the proposed RACT is overly optimistic. The emission 

specifications proposed for turbines in Section 117.405(b)(3) do not meet the RACT 

economic feasibility requirement and might not meet the technological feasibility test that 

applies to RACT. Indeed, the proposed specifications would establish emission levels 

that are even more stringent than those established by EPA's new source performance 

standards ("NSPS") for stationary turbines, set forth at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK. 

For turbines with heat input equal to or less than 50 MMBtulh that commenced 

modification or reconstruction after February 18, 2005, the Subpart KKK.K NOx 

emission standard is 150 ppm,

13 while TCEQ is proposing limits of 122 ppm for similarly 

sized turbines, i.e. turbines rated less than 4,500 hp. 14 TCEQ should not impose more 

stringent controls than are imposed in the federal rules promulgated by EPA, especially 

when the cost of compliance will be so high, as noted above. 

Finally, TCEQ's proposed timeline for compliance would not be adequate for any 

turbines that would have to undergo retrofits or more involved processes involving 

uprating followed by retrofit with SoLoNOx, such as those discussed above. Solar's 

comments request that TCEQ add an alternative compliance schedule option to the 

proposed rules, which would incorporate a phased-in schedule that would provide a more 

reasonable timeframe within which the needed technology upgrades could be 

accomplished. We endorse Solar's comments and incorporate them as if fully set forth 

herein. 

IV. TPA supports aspects of the proposed rules that would provide for 

compliance flexibility. 

Proposed Section 117.405(e)(l) would allow owners or operators to use the 

source cap option under Section 117.423, or emission reduction credits as provided in 

Section 117.9800, to comply with the NOx emission specifications of proposed new 

§ 117.405(b). Use of the source cap approach and the use of credits are well established 

mechanisms that provide sources with increased flexibility in meeting emission 

12 39 Tex. Reg. 10342. 

13 See 40 CFR §§ 60.4300 and .4320; Table 1 to Subpart KKKK of Part 60-Nitrogen Oxide 

Emission Limits for New Stationary Combustion Turbines. 

14 See conversion table (attached as Exhibit 2). 

4 
specifications. We agree with TCEQ that those mechanisms should apply to sources 

affected by the new NOx RACT rules, and we support TCEQ's proposaL 

We also support proposed new Section 117.405(e)(3), which would allow owners 

or operators to petition the Executive Director under Section 117.425 for an alternative to 

the carbon monoxide and ammonia emission specifications contained in proposed Section 

117.405(d), in cases where the owner or operator demonstrates that an affected unit 

cannot meet those specifications. This is another example where TCEQ is proposing to 

apply a well-established compliance flexibility mechanism to the new NOx RACT rules, 

and we support this proposal. Consideration on a case-by-case basis of the specific 

technological and economic circumstances of the individual unit at issue, as provided in 

Section 117.425, is the best way to ensure that emission limits are complied with while 

accounting for exceptional circumstances that may arise in a particular case. 

Similarly, TPA supports TCEQ's proposal to set the emission specification for 

gas-fired LB engines at a higher level for sources in Wise County (generally 2.0 glhp-hr) 

than in the DFW nine-county area, where the emission limit is 0.50 or 0. 70 g!hp-hr. As 

TCEQ acknowledges, emission specifications for LB engines of 0.50 or 0.70 glhp-hr 

would not constitute RACT for Wise County engines because meeting this level of 

control could necessitate the installation of emission reduction technology that would be 

more expensive than the technologies already evaluated by TCEQ for engines in Wise 

County, and would likely require the replacement of many LB engines that currently are 

in operation in Wise County. This would be contrary to RACT's requirement of 

economic feasibility and its requirement that a control level cannot be RACT for a given 

source if it is more cost-effective to replace that source with a new source in order to 

meet the emission limitation at issue. In addition, the 0.50 and 0.70 g/hp-hr control levels 

did not represent RACT when they were adopted, but instead went beyond RACT to help 

the nine-county DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment reach attainment with that 

NAAQS. 15 Under these circumstances, there is no reason to apply those beyond-RACT 

control levels to Wise County, which is included only in the moderate nonattainment area 

for the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Finally, we note that, for the most part, TCEQ is not proposing to revise the 

RACT provisions applicable to oil and gas sources of NOx in the DFW 9-county area. 

TP A supports this decision. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, some of those 

controls are already set at levels beyond RACT, and making those controls even more 

stringent would be unwarranted. Any such revision would also be unnecessary, because 

under the controls already in place in those nine counties the DFW area is making 

progress toward attaining federally established ozone levels through substantial 

reductions in NOx and VOC emissions. TCEQ recently provided an analysis of the 

continued progress toward reducing ozone precursor emissions in the DFW area in its 

15 See 39 Tex. Reg. 10342 (Dec. 26, 2014). 

5 
Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration SIP revisions, dated 

December 10,2014. 16 

V. Conclusion. 

TP A appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. Please let us know if 

we could be of any assistance or if you have any questions or concerns about the matters 

discussed above. 

Yours truly, 

Thure Cannon 

President 

16 DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard RFP SIP Revision SIP Project No. 2013-014-SIP-NR 

(Dec. 10, 2014); DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone 

Standard Nonattainment Area, Project No. 2013-015-SIP-NR (Dec. 10, 2014). 

6 
Engine Control Costs $/ton Nox Reduced 

Engine 

Make Wuakesha 

Model l7044GSI 

Horsepower 1680hp 

NOxEf Emissions 

g/hp-hr Tons/Year 

Permitted 2 32.4 

Achievable 1 16.2 

Proposed RACT 0.5 8.1 

emPact Cost $90,000 

Reduction from 2 g/hp-hr to 0.5 g/hp-hr 

NOx Reduction 

$/ton NOx 

24.3 tpy 

$3,698.55 

Reduction from 1 g/hp-hr to 0.5 g/hp.hr 

NOx Reduction 

$/ton NOx 

8.1 tpy 

$11,095.65 

Exhibit 1 
Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 2 

RuleComjlarl5011 

Proposec 117.405 (b)(3){AHC) NSPSKICKK 

Equivalent Combustion 

ppmv01S% NOz emission Combustion turbine heat Input 

hp Rat.intl lb/MMBtu 02 standard turbine type at peak load (HHV) 

less than 4500 0.45 122ppm 150ppm llllodlt'ied or <=50 1\111\/iBtu/b 

reconstrutted turbine 
Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 2 

Example taiQiiatiCII'l$ 

Solar Centaur 40 Turbine Centaur 40 Specifications (Solar Turbines) 

~ kp 

Affected Turbine Example 4,450 hp 

BSFC (Solar C-40) x 

X 

9,125 btu/hp-hr 

l/lxl0"6 MMBtu/Btu 

Heat Rate Btu/hp-hr 

flrllll Rate • 

AIIQwable Emissions 

Firing Rate 

Umlt x 

Allowable Rate 

40.61 MMbtll/hr 

40.61 MMbtll/hr 

0.45 lb NOK/MMBtu 

18.27 lb NOx/hr 

Conversion to PPMV By EPA Method U 

Stacl! Flow 

Firing Rate 

f. factor (AP-42) X 

Correction 15" 02 x 

t!Qx DQIDY 

40.61 MMbtu/hr 

8,710 dscf/MMBtu 

3.54 (20.9/!20.9-15)) 

1,252,868 dscf/hr 

Emission Rate 18.27 lb NOx/hr 

Statk Flow I 1,252,868 dsef/hr 

Conversion M19 •x-..... 0•[)1•[)•00•0•01~1~94~--~ 

U2 ppmv 815" 02 

Method 19 Eumo!t Ca!cylatlo"'i 

Exhaust Flow lb/hr 

Extaaust tf 

TMIJ)etlture 

Axial Exhaust 

SoLoNOx 

Slack Flow (dscfhtr) • Firing Rate (mm~ • 6710 dscflmmbtu •(20.9/ [ 20.9 • 02 Dry J J = cltcf/hr 

NOx {lblhr) • ppm NOx • Stack Flow (dscflhr) • .0000001194 ,. lblhr 

CO ~blhr) ., ppm CO • Stack Flow (dscfhtr) • .00000007267 •lblhr 

wtlefe: 

8,710 cltcf/mmbiU "' Fd factor used in EPA 40 CFR 60, AppendiX A. Method 19. 

0.0000001194 "'factor to COilV8I1 ppm NOx to lbl!lcf NOx. 

0.00000007267 • factor to convert ppm CO to lblacf CO. 

4,700 

9,125 

150,320 

835 

Yes 

Yes 
UNITED 

Ms. Kathy Singleton 

ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTiON AGENCY 

REG!ON6 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1:200 

DALLAS TX 75202·2733 

FEB 11 2015 

MC 206, State Implementation Plan Team 

Air Quality Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

W-6 

Re: Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 

Project Number 2013-015-SIP-NR; Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonable Further Progress State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, Project Number 2013-014-

SIP-NR;Revisions to Chapter 115, Project Number 2013-048-115-AI; and Revisions to Chapter 

117, Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

Dear Ms. Singleton: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the four proposed revisions that address the Dallas/Fort Worth 

(DFW) nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone standard. We have enclosed comments on the 

proposed attainment demonstration and RFP SIPs, and on the proposed revisions to Chapters 115 and 

117. We appreciate the work by the TCEQ in developing these documents. Nonetheless, additional 

ozone reductions will be necessary to demonstrate attainment 

The proposed attainment demonstration (Project Number 2013-015-SIP-NR) is based on an attainment 

date of December 31, 2018. On December 23,2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe D.C. Circuit held 

that the end of year attainment dates were not consistentwith Congressional intent NRDCv. EPA, 2014 

U.S. App. LEXIS 24253 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the EPA intends to promulgate a rulemaking to 

revise the attainment dates to a timeframe consistent with the court's decision, As a result, we anticipate 

that the attainment date will be earlier than the end of the 2018 ozone season, which means that the 

attainment year ozone season for the DFW nonattainment area \Villlikely be 2017 rather than 2018. 

We understand the loss of a year to demonstrate attainment presents challenges for the State. For 

example, the State will lose a year of expected ozone reductions from fleet turnover. These potential 

reductions will need to be "found" in other means to show attainment by the 2017 ozone season. While 

this will take further analysis and consideration by Texas, we are committed to working with you to 

identify solutions. 

lntern<l~ Address {URl) 111 http://\>NIW.epa.gov/regionc 

Recyo!ed!Becycl&llle til Prided with Vegetable Oll8asnd lnk.s on 100% Post<:onsumBr, Process Chlorine Free Rooycled PapBr 
We look forward to discussing the enclosed comments with you. Please feel free to contact me or Ms. 

Carrie Paige ofmy staff at 214-665-6521, ifyou have questions. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely yours, 

ftJ 7 J.j c~-J, __ M_,/ 

Guy Donaldson1 Chief 

Air Planning Section 
Project Number 2013-015-SIP-NR 

Comments addressing the Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration (AD) 

The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's 

attainment date. In light of the recent decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1 

we anticipate that the attainment date for the DFW area will be earlier than the end of the 2018 ozone 

season and thus, the attainment year ozone season for the DFW area will likely be 2017. Please revise 

the applicable elements of the attainment demonstration submittal to reflect the earlier attainment 

date. We expect the SIP requirements rule will be finalized soon addressing the Court's decision 

regarding the attainment date. 

The attainment demonstration Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) will need to be revised to reflect 

the earlier attainment date. 

The contingency plan is based on emission reductions from fleet turnover in 2019. The contingency plan 

will need to be revised to reflect the earlier attainment date. In addition, in the June 6, 2013 proposal 

for the ozone implementation rule, we proposed establishment of MVEBs consistent with the use of onroad fleet turnover as a contingency measure (see 78 FR 34178, 34199). Having such budgets would help 

to ensure that reductions from a fleet turnover contingency measure would be surplus and available for 

the SIP in the event that the contingency measures are triggered. TCEQ should include a MVEB for the 

fleet turnover contingency measure. 

TCEQ has worked to refine its modeling platform using 2006 base case periods and evaluation of 2018 

future year ozone levels. In accomplishing this work, TCEQ has performed a number of analyses to 

evaluate the model performance of the 2006 base case periods following EPA's modeling guidance. We 

appreciate TCEQ providing the supplemental modeling with updated emission inventory and model 

projections based on both EPA's existing 2007 modeling guidance and the new DRAFT modeling 

guidance methods that are currently out for public review and comment until March 13, 2015. We note 

using the new DRAFT modeling guidance methods, TCEQ projects all but one monitor to be in 

attainment (below 76 ppb) in 2018, and the Denton Airport South monitor is projected to be 76.13 ppb 

(design value or DV of 76). Using EPA's 2007 modeling guidance methods the values were projected to 

be slightly higher in 2018 with Denton at 77 ppb and Eagle Mtn. Lake and Grapevine monitors projected 

to be 76 ppb. 

As part ofthe model platform evaluation and weight of evidence (WOE) TCEQ has done a number of 

modeling analyses and also evaluated emissions and monitoring trends. Overall we think the modeling ls 

performing reasonably well, but there are some concerns with model performance oftransported ozone 

and ozone precursors as discussed below and by TCEQ in Appendix C of the proposal. Overall the WOE 

components raise some concern about whether the DFW area will be able to obtain the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard of 75 ppb in 2018. The recent court decision that indicates the attainment year will likely 

be 2017 for moderate classification areas such as DFW, makes it less clear that the area will attain the 

standard by 2017 without additional reductions. See below for more detailed comments on the 

modeling and WOE. 

1 NRDC v. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24253 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014). 

1 
Comments addressing the RACM analysis 

Please provide the estimated amount of NOx emission reductions (in tpd) that would reduce ozone 

values at the monitors by 1 ppb. In the Tables in Appendix D, please include the estimated emissions 

reductions associated with each of the measures. This additional information will help determine which 

measures, separately or in combination, would assist in advancing the attainment date for measures 

that can be implemented prior to the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 

Within the RACM analysis, the TCEQ estimates that reducing the source cap for the kilns in Ellis County 

would not provide significant NOx emission reductions for the DFW area. However, a reduction in the 

source cap of 4.6 tpd, as estimated by the TCEQ, does appear significant, com pared with the emissions 

reductions estimated for other sources of NOx in the DFW area. What modeling or other analyses were 

performed that support the TCEQ's conclusion regarding the source cap? 

The TCEQ provided an evaluation of emissions from all of the utility electric generators in east and 

central Texas. However, the discussion in Appendix Don the formation, background levels, and 

transport of ozone strongly supports the implementation of controls on NOx sources located to the east 

and southeast of the DFW nonattainment area. How would a reduction in NOx emissions from utility 

electric generators in just the counties closest to the eastern and southern boundaries of the DFW area 

impact the DFW area? 

Comments addressing the proposed VOC RACT analysis 

EPA supports the inclusion of major sources ofVOC located in Wise County to become subject to the 

requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 115. 

EPA appreciates the VOC RACT analysis provided by TCEQ. 

Comments addressing the proposed NOx RACT analysis 

There has been a significant drop in the ambient NOx concentration for Ellis County in part due to past 

NOx control measures concerning cement kilns operating in the DFW nonattainment area and we 

applaud TCEQ for these efforts. Because of significant changes in the type and number of cement kilns in 

Ellis County, however, TCEQ's rules need to be reevaluated to insure these reductions are maintained, 

and the emission limits reflect a RACT level of control as required by the Clean Air Act. 

In particular, the retirement of the higher emitting wet kilns and operation of more energy efficient and 

lower emitting dry kilns in Ellis County makes it necessary for the TCEQ to revisit its NOx cap limit, set 

forth in 2007 at 17.4 tons per day (tpd). This limit was set, in part, based on higher emission rates for 

wet kilns. Therefore, with fewer sources contributing to the cap, the dry kilns essentially have a less 

stringent emission rate requirement. We can no longer conclude the emission limit that is in place 

reflects a RACT level of control. An evaluation of the RACT for cement kilns in Ellis County is needed that 

reflects the level of control that can reasonably be achieved and new limits to reflect the reasonable 

level of control. TCEQ can either establish appropriate rate based limits {lbs/ton of clinker) for each unit 

or it can establish a cap based on appropriate rate based emission rates. It is important to recognize that 

the SIP emission limit needs to reflect RACT. We believe that a rate base limit will preserve any 

necessary operational flexibility as it sets no limit on production rates. Failure to conduct a thorough 

RACT analysis for cement kilns which would include appropriate emission limits would prevent us from 

approving the RACT portion of the attainment plan submittal. 

2 
Comments addressing the proposed AD SIP, Appendix H: local Initiatives Submitted by the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments 

We appreciate the work done by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in 

developing the list of local initiatives. The submittal letter from the NCTCOG indicates that the initiatives 

are "expected to be implemented by 2018." In light ofthe recent Court decision2 and consequential 

need for EPA to establish an earlier attainment date, please list the local initiatives that will be 

completed by March 1, 2017. 

DFW AD/WOE Detailed comments 

As discussed above, EPA provided new DRAFT modeling guidance (Dec. 2014) that is currently out for 

review and stakeholder comments until March 13, 2015. EPA's current plan is to review comments and 

finalize the revised modeling guidance by the end of the year (2015). The guidance may change further 

based on comments. In this transitional period, we recommend that TCEQ continue to provide the 

attainment test analysis using both the existing 2007 modeling guidance approach and the new 

approach recommended in the December 2014 DRAFT modeling guidance. 

The updated modeling results provided in early January by TCEQ indicate one monitor at 76 ppb in 2018 

using the new DRAFT guidance and existing guidance methods indicate 77 ppb at Denton and 76 ppb at 

Eagle Mtn. lake and Grapevine. We note that these numbers will most likely go up some with an 

attainment demonstration based on 2017. We request that TCEQ supplement their analysis as needed 

to show that the area will attain by 2017. 

There should be further analysis and documentation evaluating the days being used in the attainment 

test. The days that are being used at each monitor should be identified. In limiting the days to 10 days, 

an evaluation of the performance on each day and the type of meteorology/transport phenomena of 

each day should be provided. The main principal of the attainment test is to limit the days to the higher 

days at the monitor, but there needs to be an evaluation of the days used to make sure that the set of 

days used represents the conceptual model for the area and is representative of all the days that yield 

ozone exceedances. In doing this evaluation it may be that more than 10 days are necessary for some 

monitors. For example: the later summer episode is important to the conceptual model and some of 

these days may not be included based on the 10 days threshold. 

Overall, the WOE analysis is not overly supportive that the modeling is conservative. TCEQ has provided 

information on recent ozone trends to support its conclusion the area will attain by 2018. Most of the 

recent years, however, have been average or below normal in overall conduciveness for ozone 

formation. Temperature has been high for some of these years which does lead to higher ozone, but 

wind speeds have also been higher than normal which leads to lower ozone concentration with more 

dispersion. 2011 was one of these type of years. 2014 had very favorable meteorology and was one of 

the lowest ozone monitoring years in the Eastern half of the US with a 2014 DFW area DV of 81 ppb. It 

was abnormal, due to its lower than average temperature and frequency of frontal passages that led to 

reduced background build up, and not likely to be repeated. 

The 2013 DV data for the DFW area was 87 ppb, indicating an 11 ppb drop would have to occur within 

four to five years to reach attainment in 2017 or 2018. Even considering the anomalous 2014, the area 

has to drop another 6 ppb. 

2 NRDC v. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24253 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014). 

3 
We note that normal on-road/non-road fleet turnover within areas of DFW and Texas will help lower 

ozone levels in the DFW area. In TCEQ's SIP proposal, TCEQ provides a long term trends analysis that 

also included a linear relationship to estimate the long term ozone level change. This equation indicates 

the 8-hour values have dropped at a rate of 1.1 ppb per year. We modified the table to extrapolate the 

DFW 8-hour ozone DVs in 2017 and 2018, which were still 80-82 ppb for these future years based on this 

rate of reduction. See Figure 1 on page 7. Since the overwhelming majority of reductions of NOx in the 

plan are the federal measures for on road and off road sources, it seems unreasonable to expect this 

rate of reduction to accelerate. Based on the monitoring data and lack of additional large reductions in 

NOx within areas of Texas that impact DFW, it is difficult to see how the area would reach attainment in 

2018 based solely on federal measures reductions from mobile and non-road. The fact that the 

attainment year will likely be 2017 makes the chance of attainment smaller. 

Evaluation of the model performance data and source apportionment indicates that the model may be 

oversensitive to low-level NOx reductions and has some issues with NOx level predictions in the DFW 

area. We note that the kv patch (vertical diffusivity patch) to induce more vertical mixing may be 

resulting in better ozone performance in the base case, but the atmosphere may not be mixing as 

rapidly as the patch is indicating. This would result in the model being overly sensitive to low-level NOx 

reductions. This may compensate for emission projection errors in the base case, thus resulting in 

better model performance. We suspect the model may be providing more mixing than really occurs 

based on N02 monitoring throughout the domain compared to modeled values. In particular, it tends 

to under-predict NOx concentrations in the western half ofthe domain and over-predict NOx 

concentrations in the upwind region. These issues with the NOx modeled levels could result in 

inaccurate ozone predictions and raise uncertainty in the attainment demonstration. 

While the State has provided a large chapter on Weight of Evidence, the principal evidence is the recent 

monitor data. The monitor data does not show the large drops in local ozone levels and therefore raises 

a fundamental question whether the photochemical modeling is working as an accurate tool for 

assessing attainment in 2018 for DFW. 

We also note that the modeling seems to project significant reductions due to out-of-state emission 

reductions, which reflects some of the expected trends in declining regional ozone levels. 

Episode Analysis 

Overall the June 2006 episode is a good episode and representative of the type of days from the 

conceptual model that drive the early summer exceedances in the DFW area. The inclusion of Aug-Sep 

2006 is an improvement and attempts to include days that make up the latter summer period in DFW 

that are historically the worst days overall and usually drive the DV for the area. Latter summer 2006 

was not typical and was actually light on ozone exceedances compared to the conceptual model, but 

was a step in the right direction. Because this period was below average it still hinders the analysis of 

later summer ozone events. Given the bimodal (peaks in June and higher peaks in Aug/Sep) we still 

have concern that the days that drive the overall DV and attainment of the area are underrepresented in 

the analysis. 

Model Performance Analysis 

We appreciate TCEQ's efforts to analyze the Model Performance of the base case modeling. In 

Appendix C, we note that for the August/September episode, the average over-prediction of observed 

Maximum Daily Average 8-hour Ozone (MDA8) ozone values is over 10 ppb (Figure 4-4 of the proposal, 

4 
first set of bars), which is sufficient to cause concern. The TCEQ is investigating the causes of this bias 

and will take appropriate steps to ameliorate it, if possible, in the near future. 

Strong underestimation of NOx at Kaufman area high monitored values could be affecting daytime 

scavenging. Hinton peak NOx may seem to be slightly overestimated, but given the close proximity to 

the 1-35 corridor which is a large NO/N02 source, modeled values would likely be higher for both the 

bilinear interpolation values and the 3x3 array values. Looking at the Ft. Worth NW monitor, it appears 

ozone on some high ozone days is being overestimated with a spread in the 75-90 ppb range, but the 

NOx seems underestimated on some ofthe higher ozone days/higher NOx monitored days. The 

underestimation bias on the highest NOx monitored days may be part ofthe reason for ozone 

overestimation especially in the latter summer episode. The overestimation of isoprene may also be 

playing into what is perceived as an ozone overestimation bias on the highest values. 

The model performance time series analysis in Appendix Chad modeled concentrations of HRVOC 

species much higher than observed at Hinton Street C401 and at Fort Worth Northwest C13 monitors. 

Modeling on a number of days seems to be overestimating the MDA8 and overall ozone levels at the 

upwind monitors in the DFW area and this overestimation of background may be part of the reason for 

overestimation at downwind monitors. On some of these days this may indicate the local production is 

actually biased low on days that appear to have good downwind model performance. Looking at the 

analysis at the other upwind regional monitors (Italy, San Augustine, Clarksville, and Palestine) all appear 

to have an overestimation of regional levels and are especially off in the nighttime values. Modeled 

nighttime values range from 20-60 ppb higher, compared to monitor values. This is probably leading to 

the DFW upwind monitor performance issues especially on the morning hours and even on the MDA8 

for many days. This issue may lead to the model being more responsive to regional background level 

changes than local changes. 

We recommend identifying the 10 days used for each monitor on the daily ozone MDA8 plots in Figure 4 

ofthe proposal. This could potentially be accomplished by adding the specific monitors on each day 

that was the day was used for the RRF analysis. As discussed above please document and show how the 

days (10 or more) fit with the overall conceptual model for the DFW area. 

We appreciate the Source apportionment modeling that was included and find it informative. We note 

that it seems to indicate lower contributions from outside of Texas, than the upwind monitor analysis 

that Texas included. This is not surprising as the upwind monitor analysis approach can overestimate 

the amount of background ozone that is contributing to the exceedance since the monitor is not always 

completely upwind and does not necessarily pair in time with the contribution further downwind. On 

some of the highest transport days that also saw local exceedances predicted in DFW, the non-Texas 

component was usually less than 50 ppb and often 45-40 ppb or less. The source apportionment 

analysis comports with previous source apportionment analyses indicating that on many high ozone 

days in the DFW area, Texas sources contribute approximately half ofthe ozone. 

WOE/Corroborative Analysis 

Recent NOx trends (Figure 5-10 in TCEQ's Proposal) indicate a fairly flat NOx trend for several NO 

monitors in the western area of the DFW area (Eagle Mtn. Lake, Denton, and Parker County monitors). 

These monitors are in areas more impacted by the growth in NOx sources for Oil and Gas Development 

that seem to be countering the normal reduction in NOx levels seen at other monitors due to fleet 

turnover reductions (on-road and Non road). These higher NOx levels in the modeling domain that seem 

5 
to be fairly flat with no change since 2009 raise concern that the area is not seeing the NOx reductions 

needed to bring the ozone levels down at these monitors. 

We note that the attainment demonstration modeling includes reductions in NOx and VOC in Wise 

County from controls proposed for RACT in Wise County. These emission reductions were 

discussed/quantified in Appendix B of the proposal. Any SIP revisions based on removing Wise County 

would have to have the modeling adjusted so that it does not take credit for unenforceable reductions. 

Please confirm the estimate NOx emission reductions in Wise County match with the adopted 

regulations for NOx control in Wise County. 

Previous control requirements put in place on natural gas fired compressor engines in the DFW 9-

county area and in many upwind counties relied on NSCR catalytic convertors that typically require 

periodic changing of catalysts to maintain estimated control levels. Has Texas done any follow-up to 

confirm that proper maintenance is occurring to ensure the controls are still meeting the requirements? 

The modeling includes emissions from Natural Gas production in the Barnett Shale area and projects 

NOx emissions to directly correlate with a decline in production levels. We have some concern that as 

well pressure diminishes that natural gas fired engines driving natural gas compressors may be utilized 

more than the current usage per production amount. This may result in the projected NOx emissions 

not dropping as much as projected. The same volume of gas being produced with less well head 

pressure flow could need more overall actual compression to get to market. This situation could result 

in more NOx emissions than estimated based on the current emissions/production level relationship. 

We recommend that TCEQ perform a study to confirm that the emissions trends projected in the 

modeling have occurred. 

We note that there is some discussion of ERCs and DERCs in Appendix B of the proposal. That discussion 

indicates that there are 363 tpy of NOx ERCs and over 6000 tons of DERCs. Please clarify the calculation 

that resulted in 17 tpd of NOx being included in the model. Please explain and document how the NOx 

and VOC ERCs/DERCs were allocated in the modeling, including spatial allocation (daily DERC emissions 

plots). Also, please clarify if the attainment demonstration takes into account any emergency use of 

DERCs beyond the flow control limit (e.g., emergency use declared by ERCOT). It might be helpful to 

look at any past emergency usage of DERCs and generate a memo documenting past usage rates and 

whether or not the DFW area had any exceedances monitored on those days and provide that in the 

documentation. 

Summary of Analysis of the Attainment Demonstration and WOE/Corroborative Analysis 

We appreciate TCEQ's efforts to provide comprehensive modeling using an episode that includes 

additional days in attempt to provide representative modeling. As noted above, despite TCEQ efforts, 

there are concerns with model performance. There are also concerns that even with the additional 

episode days, the episode overall is not fully representative of the most difficult ozone scenarios. In 

addition, while current ozone trends and the model predictions support that ozone levels will continue 

to improve, it is not clear to EPA that these trends are sufficient for the area to attain by 2018. 

Unfortunately, as discussed above, we anticipate that the attainment year ozone season for the DFW 

area will likely be 2017 rather than 2018. The attainment demonstration will need to be reworked to 

provide for attainment by 2017. EPA stands ready to work with TCEQ to develop streamlined modeling 

approaches and weight of evidence approaches for 2017. We note, however, that we believe it is likely 

that additional reductions will need to be included to demonstrate attainment. 

6 
Figure 1: Long term DFW 8-hour monitoring trends 

..0 

0.. 

0.. 

From Texas Sl P Proposal- EPA Extrapolation from 2013 to 2017/18 

160 

140 

1(}[) 

Ozone Design Values in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area 

. . . . 

v=~1.1x+2331 

R2 =0.86 

-------------------------------------

' ' 

SG ' 

60 ----$-Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values -lii-One-Hour Ozone Design Values 

- - 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NMQS: 84 ppb -2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NMQS: 75 ppb 

----·linear (Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values) -Linear (One-Hour Ozone Design Values} 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 201:» 2005 2006 2007 2006 2003 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Year 

*O..sign Values are fram EPA's AQS_ 

7 

2013 data point is 

87 ppb. Slope of 

TCEQ's line is 1.1 

ppb which would 

yield 2018 value of 

81 ppb and 82 ppb 

for 2017 . 

2017 2018 
Rule Project Number 2013-048-115-AI 

Comments addressing Chapter 115 revisions to implement Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) for all emissions sources addressed in a control techniques guidelines (CTG) and all non-CTG 

major sources of VOCs in the DFW 2008 eight-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area (serious--

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant, and moderate-- Wise). 

1. Support for Revisions 

In general, we are supportive of this rule project to implement RACT for emissions sources of 

VOCs in the DFW ten county area. 

2. Compliance Schedules for Wise County 

At the time of this review, Wise County is currently designated as nonattainment for the 2008 

eight hour standard. Subchapter A Definitions, Section 115.119 (h), Compliance Schedules 

states: "Upon the date the commission publishes notice in the Texas Register that Wise County 

is no longer designated nonattainment for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard, the owner or operator of each storage tank is not required to comply with any 

of the requirements in this division." 

This provision is not approvable as proposed because it does not contain a replicable procedure 

to change the applicability of a SIP requirement. EPA's designation of Wise County is currently 

under review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Mississippi Commission on Environmental 

Quality v. EPA). We understand that the litigation outcome and potential subsequent 

rulemaking by EPA concerning Wise County are unknown at this time. Although we appreciate 

the commission's dilemma, if Wise County is no longer designated as nonattainment in the 

future, a publication by the commission in the Texas Register that Wise County is no longer 

designated nonattainment is not sufficient to change the applicability of requirements to 

sources in Wise County. Under CAA Section 110(i), this change would require a SIP revision 

submitted by TCEQ after completion of the State's rulemaking process. 

Phrasing similar to that quoted above occurs in multiple places throughout this proposed SIP 

revision and must also be revised: 

Subchapter B, General Volatile Organic Compounds Sources, Division 1: Storage ofVOCs, 

§115.119(hL Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter B, General Volatile Organic Compounds Sources, Division 2: Vent Gas Control, 

§115.129(gL Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter B, General Volatile Organic Compounds Sources, Division 3: Water Separation, 

§115.139(e), Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 1: Loading and 

Unloading of Volatile Organic Compounds, §115.219(g) Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2: Filling of Gasoline 

Storage Vessels (Stage 1) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities, §115.229(f) Counties and 

Compliance Schedules. 

8 
Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 3: Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Leads from Transport Vessels, §115.239(e) Counties and Compliance 

Schedules. 

Subchapter D, Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas Processing, and Petrochemical Processes, 

Division 3: Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing, 

and Petrochemical Processes in Ozone Nonattainment Areas, §115.359{e) Counties and 

Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, Division 2: Surface Coating Processes, §115.429{f) 

Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, Division 4: Offset Lithographic Printing, §115.449{i) 

Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating 

Processes, §115.459{d) Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, §115.469{d) 

Counties and Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, 

§115.479{d) Compliance Schedules. 

Subchapter F, Miscellaneous Industrial Sources, Solvent-Using Processes Division 1: Cutback 

Asphalt, §115.519{e) Compliance Schedules. 

3. Definition of Dallas-Fort Worth area (Subchapter A Definitions, §115.10 {11)) 

The definition of the "Dallas-Fort Worth area" has been revised to refer to 3 different 

designations depending on the definition's applicability and based on the number of counties. 

For clarity, we suggest creating three distinct definitions, such as (A) "Dallas-Fort Worth area, 4 

counties," (B) "Dallas-Fort Worth area, 9 counties" and (C) "Dallas-Fort Worth area, 10 counties" 

so that the terms used in the subchapters and divisions provide information about which 

definition is intended. As currently proposed, the definition requires a person to cross reference 

particular subchapters and divisions with the definition section to determine what counties 

"Dallas Fort Worth area" includes in that context. 

Alternatively, or possibly in addition, we suggest clarifying the definition of Dallas-Fort Worth 

area as it applies to a particular subchapter. 

An example of a reference which is somewhat problematic may be found in Subchapter C, 

Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 1: Loading and Unloading of Volatile 

Organic Compounds (Subchapter C, §115.219{f) Counties and Compliance Schedules). 

Reviewing the definition of Dallas-Fort Worth in §115.10, this subchapter is not specifically 

delineated in definition (A) or (B), therefore it seems that the applicable definition is (C) for all 

10 counties. However, in §115.219{f), we believe TCEQ intended this reference to the DFW area 

to include only 9 counties {§115.10{11)(B)) because there is a separate paragraph that provides 

requirements for Wise County, §115.219{e). There are additional instances similar to this 

throughout the revisions. 

9 
Project Number 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Comments Addressing the Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonable Further Progress SIP Revision 

We appreciate the detailed work submitted in the RFP plan. It appears that the RFP and contingency 

reductions are available, but not always shown accurately. We found mathematical errors in several 

tables. For example, in Table 3-12 (Post-2011 RFP Target level ofVOC emission for Wise CountyL page 3-

12 of the submittal: the VOC target for the 2018 attainment year would be 28.29 tpd (29.33 -1.04 = 

28.29L but Table 3-12 shows 28.30 tpd. This error is also reflected in Table 3-16, line 9 and in Appendix 

1, on Sheet 16. There also appears to be an error made in calculating the creditable RFP control 

reductions in NOx for the nine previously designated counties between 2017 and 2018, shown on line 3 

ofTable 3-15. The sum of NOx reductions projected for 2017 is 864.23 (Table 4-1) and the sum of NOx 

reductions projected for 2018 is 901.79 (Table 4-2). The difference between these two sums is 37.56, 

but Table 3-15 shows 14.42. Please indicate where the additional 23.14 tpd in NOx emission reductions 

has been placed (37.56 -14.42 = 23.14). We did not find errors in such calculations for the VOC emission 

reductions. 

The titles for Tables 4-23 and 4-24 identify them as providing the RFP contingency demonstrations for 

the 2017 milestone year, but the dates within the tables are 2018. Additionally, we believe several of 

the numbers provided in these tables reflect emissions for 2018 rather than for 2017. 

The Airport Emissions Inventory- Wise County is within the DFW MSA and has airports, but there is no 

mention of Wise County within the Airport El. Wise County had not been proposed as a nonattainment 

area when the Airport El was completed (August 2011L but neither had Hunt and Henderson Counties, 

which are included in the Airport El. Please explain why Wise County is not included in the Airport El. 

10 
Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI 

Comments on the Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 

1. Sections 117.210(c), 117.225, 117.405(d), 117.410(d), 117.425, 117.1110(b), 117.1125, 117.1310(b}, 

and 117.1325 pertain to control of ammonia and carbon monoxide emissions which are not ozone 

precursors, and are therefore not necessary components of Texas ozone SIP. As a result, EPA 

supports TCEQ for clearly identifying that these sections are not intended for inclusion into the EPAapproved Texas SIP. 

2. EPA supports the inclusion of major sources of NOx located in Wise County to become subject to 

requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 117. 

3. At the time of this review, Wise County is currently designated as nonattainment for the 2008 eighthour ozone standard. 

Section 117.9030(a)(2} states: "Upon the date the commission publishes notice in the Texas Register 

that Wise County is no longer designated nonattainment for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard, the owner or operator of a unit located at a major stationary source 

of NOX located in Wise County is not required to comply with the requirements of Subchapter B, 

Division 4 of this chapter." This provision is not approvable as proposed because it does not contain 

a replicable procedure to change the applicability of a SIP requirement. EPA's designation of Wise 

County is currently under review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Mississippi Commission on 

Environmental Quality v. EPA). We understand that the litigation outcome and potential subsequent 

rulemaking by EPA concerning Wise County are unknown at this time. Although we appreciate the 

commission's dilemma, if Wise County is no longer designated as nonattainment in the future, a 

publication by the commission in the Texas Register that Wise County is no longer designated nonattainment is not sufficient to change the applicability of requirements to sources in Wise County. 

Under CAA Section 110(i}, this change would require a SIP revision submitted by TCEQ after 

completion ofthe State's rulemaking process. 

11 

INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY 

January 15, 2015, 6:30p.m. -Arlington City Council Chambers 

Reference Number 

0-1 

0-2 

0-3 

0-4 

0-5 

0-6 

0-7 

0-8 

0-g 

0-10 

0-11 

0-12 

0-13 

0-14 

0-15 

0-16 

1 

Submitted by 

Faith Chatham, DFW Regional Concerned 

Citizens 

Harriet Irby, DFWRCC 

David E. Cozad, Cozad for Congress 

Tom "Smitty" Smith 

Karen Hadden, Sustainable Energy and 

Economic Development (SEED Coalition) 

Jim Schermbeck, Downwinders at Risk 

Lon Burnam 

Sandra DenBraber 

Tamera Bounds, Mansfield Gas Well 

Awareness 

Tracy Casto, Dallas County Medical Society 

Kim Feil 

John MacFarlane, Greater Fort Worth 

Sierra Club 

Dewayne Quartermous, Lone Star Chapter 

of Sierra Club 

Ken Sambell, Downwinders 

Susybelle Gosslee, League of Women Voters 

of Dallas 

Liz Walley 
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY 

January 15, 2015, 6:30p.m. -Arlington City Council Chambers 

Reference Number 

0-17 

0-18 

Submitted by 

Cheryl Boswell, Health and Wellness 

Alliance with the Children's Health System 

Jim Duncan, North Texas Chapter of the 

American Solar Energy Society, 

representing himself 

INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY 

January 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m. -Austin 

NO ORAL TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THIS RULE REVISION. 

2 
1 

2 

_,;_ 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

IN RE: PROPOSED REVISION TO 30 TAC 

CHAPTERS 115 AND 117 AND TO THE 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

Date: January 15, 2015 

Location: City of Arlington Council Chamber 

Arlington Municipal Building 

101 W. Abram Street 

Arlington, Texas 76010 

The above-entitled matter came on for 

hearing, pursuant to notice, at 6:30 p.m. 

Conducting: Tara Drissell, Chief Clerk's Office 

SPEAKERS: 

Faith Chatham - Page 6 

Harriet Irby - Page 10 

David Cozad - Page 13 

Tom "Smitty" Smith - Page 16 

Karen Hadden - Page 20 

Jim Schermbeck - Page 24 

Lon Burnam - Page 29 

Sandra Den Braber - Page 31 

Tamer a Bounds - Page 32 

Tracy Casto - Page 34 

Kim Feil - Page 37 

John MacFarlane - Page 41 

Dewayne Quartermous - Page 44 

Ken Sambell - Page 45 

Susybelle Gosslee - Page 46 

Liz Wally - Page 50 

Cheryl Boswell - Page 51 

Jim Duncan - Page 55 

1 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

MS. DRISSELL: Good evening and welcome. 

I'd like to formally open the public hearing. My name is 

Tara Drissell, and I'm with the Office of the Chief Clerk 

with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Also 

with me tonight we have Donna Huff, who is the manager of 

the Air Quality Planning Section. From the Air Quality 

7 Division, if you guys would kind of all raise your hands, 

8 Kathy Singleton, Kristin Patton, Shelley Naik, Chris Kite, 

9 Michael Ege, and Joe Thomas. 

10 We are here this evening to receive oral and 

11 written comments on the proposed Dallas/Fort Worth or DFW 

12 Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan or SIP 

13 Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress SIP 

14 Revision for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. 

15 On January 12, 2015, a supplement was posted on 

16 the website that included information about a possible 

17 transition at adoption for both SIP revisions from on-road 

18 mobile source emissions inventories developed using the 

19 EPA's motor vehicle emission simulator, or MOVES, 2010b 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

model to those developed using this MOVES 2014 model. The 

analysis used MOVES 2014 based on-road emissions 

inventories and are supplements to the SIP revisions. 

In addition, we are also here to receive 

comments on proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administrative 

Code Chapter 115, to implement reasonably available 

2 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

control technology, or RACT, for all emission sources 

addressed in a control techniques guidelines, CTG, and all 

non-CTG major sources of volatile organic compounds, VOC, 

in the Dallas/Fort Worth DFW 2008 eight-hour moderate 

nonattainment and to revise Chapter 117 to implement RACT 

for all major sources of nitrogen oxides, NOx, in the DFW 

2008 eight-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area as 

required by FCAA 172(c) (1) and 182(f). 

The proposed rulemaking would extend 

implementation of RACT to major sources of NOx located in 

newly designated Wise County. Although not necessary to 

12 satisfy RACT requirements, the proposed rulemaking would 

13 also provide compliance flexibility to testing 

14 requirements of Chapter 117 for temporary boilers and 

15 process heaters, and it would clarify the definition of 

16 electric power generating system to distinguish rule 

17 requirements for independent power producers located in 

18 all Texas ozone nonattainment areas. 

19 The proposed banking and trading rulemaking 

20 would revise the Emission Reduction Credit and Discrete 

21 Emission Reduction Credit Programs by repealing the rules 

22 for generating credits from area and mobile sources and 

23 for use by mobile sources; clarifying how reductions are 

24 surplus to the SIP; updating for changed federal 

25 standards; clarifying provisions for substituting credits 

3 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

from one ozone precursor for another; removing the 

requirements to submit original certificates for trade-in 

use; clarifying the equation for generating credits; and 

clarifying that limitation on protocols apply to both 

generation and use. 

Copies of the proposed SIP and rule revisions 

are outside available on the registration if you would 

like to review them. We will continue to accept written 

comments on these proposals until February 11, 2015. 

Several of you signed up to give us your comments orally. 

If you choose not to do that tonight, remember that you 

can continue to submit them until February 15 in writing. 

This hearing -- this portion of the hearing is 

structured strictly for the receipt of oral or written 

comments. A few of you have already handed in written 

comments tonight. You can continue to do that. Please 

make sure if you do have written comments and have not 

already given them to us, please give it to one of the 

staff members before you leave tonight. 

This second part of the hearing is for you to 

give us oral comments. We will not be responding to you 

during this portion of the meeting. Hopefully I'm going 

to call you in the order that you signed in. Because we 

have a lot of people that obviously want to speak tonight, 

I'm going to ask you to limit your comments to five 

4 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

minutes. Once we get through everyone, if you still would 

like to give us further comment orally if you don't get it 

all said within the five minutes, you can come back up to 

the mike. But in order to give everybody the opportunity 

to speak, please limit it to five minutes. 

I'm going to call your name in the order that 

you signed in. So that everyone can hear and because we 

actually the court reporter definitely needs to hear, 

I'd like to ask you to step up to the microphone and state 

your name for the record. First up we have Faith Chatham 

followed by --

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Can you identify the EPA 

folks that are here, please? 

MS. DRISSELL: Sure. I'm sorry. 

MS. HUFF: Really quick, Donna Huff, Air 

Quality Planning. I want to make just a small correction. 

You can submit written comments up until February 12 --

sorry about that, but it's February 11. So it's February 

11. That was extended. We just extended that last month 

or earlier today. The EPA folks in here, Carl and Carrie, 

and they both work in the Region 6 office. 

MS. DRISSELL: I need my glasses. Sorry. 

February 11, end of comment period. Faith Chatham. If 

you'll state your name for the record. 

MS. CHATHAM: I'm Faith Chatham and I live 

5 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

here in Arlington and I'm speaking for DFW Regional 

Concerned Citizens. I'm going to be blunt. We have 

addressed you with courtesy, and you have totally ignored 

our comments and our suggestions. This SIP does not 

include any significant additional reasonable available 

control technologies nor does it include all reasonable 

available control methods. In presenting this SIP, you 

are assuming the posture of an ostrich with its head in 

the sand. You are saying, we'll do nothing and hope that 

things will improve. Sorry, it does not work that way. 

Do nothing and you get the same or worse outcomes. 

Last year I was glad to finally hear the results 

from a study that actually measured emissions from sources 

which were estimated in the permit by rule. At last, real 

numbers from real tests instead of calculations on oil and 

gas. Some sources which were tested consistently gave out 

less emissions than were estimated. However, the engines 

used on production and compression sites consistently gave 

out higher emissions than those estimated in the permit by 

rule. 

Now, there have been a number of times we've 

discussed this, and you always seem to forget that it was 

ever brought up. I'm going to point out that this has 

been brought up to your attention three different times. 

I was seated next to an engineer at that 

6 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

meeting, David E. Cozad, and he asked, what impact would 

converting to electrical motors with a significant amount 

of them solar powered have on these emissions? The answer 

that was given by the engineer at that meeting over at the 

cog was it would be significant. It might even drop the 

emissions from these engines down to zero. 

We requested at that meeting that TCEQ have this 

modeled and include it in the SIP. It was not included in 

the draft. I asked, why not? 

The answer was converting engines used on 

Barnett Shale production sites to electric would be too 

big a strain on the grid. 

I said, wait a minute. Did you even model this 

to find out what percentage of generation would need to be 

solar before you rejected the suggestion? 

And the reply was, no, we did no modeling on 

this. We did not consider solar. 

I am here today to point out that solar is not a 

new technology. It is readily available, and the price 

continues to drop for the components. Once implemented, 

it is a cost-saving measure. It's used widely in rural 

areas on oil and gas already, and the components can be 

moved from one site to another, so there is portability. 

Electrical engines are not new technology. Some 

are already in use on oil and gas sites throughout the 

7 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Barnett Shale in the United States. The failure of TCEQ 

to include electrification of engines on oil and gas 

production sites in the Barnett Shale in this SIP is a 

gross violation of the charge you have under the Clean Air 

Act. 

Now, I don't like saying things that are tough. 

I'd rather say y'all have done a great job. That's my 

personality. I'm a people pleaser. But this time you 

failed. You haven't done your job. I've listened to 

frustrated citizens say unkind things to TCEQ staff for 

years, and I usually try to be as civil as possible when 

addressing you. 

However, this year, seeing your refusal, your 

failure of including reasonable available control 

technologies and reasonable available control measures in 

this SIP prompts me to say that attempting to work with 

TCEQ on this SIP thus far has been an exercise in 

futility. You have not listened. You don't follow the 

law. This SIP does not exclude -- include any evidence 

that you have done any constructive work in assisting this 

region in meeting the old, outdated attainment standards. 

This SIP certainly doesn't move us forward 

toward meeting the newer more strict attainment standards. 

You have typed a lot of empty words, and you've drawn your 

paycheck, but you have not done your jobo It's a failure. 

8 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

It doesn't meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. It 

doesn't even seem to attempt to. It's not satisfactory. 

We can do better. I'm here as a citizen saying do your 

job. Include the RACT and the RACM that will move us 

forward. 

In closing, I'd like to point out that whenever 

we stick our heads in the sand, there's a part of our 

anatomy that's sticking up in the air. As a citizen of 

the DFW metroplex, this SIP places our region, both our 

present and our future, with its rear end in the air and 

its head in the sand. We can't move forward that way. It 

makes us very vulnerable, a target. And the impact on our 

economic growth, on our region's health and its 

inhabitants' health and the public infrastructure funding 

are on a collision course with the bullseye you are 

exposing us to with the failure to meet the criteria of 

SIP. Thank you very much. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Harriet Irby 

followed by David Cozad followed by Tom "Smitty" Smith. 

MS. IRBY: Good evening, TCEQ. My name is 

Harriet Irby. I live in Pantego, Texas, and I am here to 

talk about essentially the human cost of your modeling or 

lack thereof, your enforcement, or lack thereof. I have 

attended many of these hearings, and I have waited long to 

hear you prove up your case as guardians of public health 

9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

and the environment. 

And I would love to see TCEQ present statistics 

on we cleaned up the air. The air is cleaner because the 

asthma rate is down, COPD deaths among those who have 

never smoked is down, intellectual industries, think tanks 

and so forth are coming here because they recognize this 

area for environmental quality. I'm still waiting. I 

want instead to offer to you some personal anecdotes. And 

I know you are a bureaucratic statistically-driven agency, 

but it is true that people leave this area driven out by 

air quality. 

Case in point: Marsha Stare, whose father was a 

physician in Oak Cliff for many years, currently resides 

in Troy, Ohio, in a center for the disabled. She has 

approximately 10 percent of her lung capacity, and she's 

50s, 60s, whatever. She smoked a small amount 20 years 

ago. Her physician informed her that her lung problems 

were not caused by her brief exposure to tobacco. 

And he said, where did you live? 

And she said, well, I was raised in Dallas, 

spent time in North Texas. 

And he said, well, oh, well, we all know about 

air quality in North Texas. Don't go back there. 

Okay. And I have and Marsha, I talked to 

Marsha about this hearing, and I have her permission to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

tell her story. 

Okay. Now, personally as a COPD patient who 

never smoked and who is facing a terminal illness because 

I was poisoned by air, I want to do a little fashion show, 

the proper fashion accessories for North Texas breathers. 

This is your color-coordinated 02 bag. Okay. I used to 

have a blue one but it wore out, so I thought, well, the 

least I can do is color coordinate my oxygen. 

Last week -- and, you know, ozone is getting 

better and all, that kind of thing. Well, I certainly am 

not getting better. So I went out and bought this pink 

VOC mask. I mean, every North Texas lady who can't really 

breathe needs one of these in proper pink. And this is 

for traffic jams. And, of course, nine point pollution is 

pretty hard to model, and being human and not a machine, I 

tend to randomize my trips. I got caught in a traffic jam 

in the Parks Mall the day after Christmas. I didn't use 

my oxygen. I went home and had a rip-roaring asthma 

attack, coughed up a third to a half a cup of phlegm 

almost immediately. 

And I said, the VOCs are getting me, I need a 

mask. Okay. Home Depot, 50 bucks. Wear it when you 

drive, North Texas. Okay. 

One last thing. I think you're playing games 

with words here. I asked a question about nonattainment 

11 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

areas as opposed to moderate. That makes it sound kind of 

better. You know, you could be a nonattainment, but if 

you're just a moderate nonattainment, that's not so bad. 

Well, I'm looking for political use of words, and I've 

come across reasonably available control technologies. 

Reasonable? How do you define reasonable? Reasonable to 

me is something that cleans up the air so I can breathe. 

Reasonable are standards more like California has. This 

looks fairly impressive, but frankly, I don't know what 

you're talking about. And with that, I conclude my 

remarks. And I wish you all the best of luck, and I hope 

you don't have to drive I-35. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. David Cozad. 

State your name for the record. 

MR. COZAD: My name is David E. Cozad. I 

reside in Arlington. Actually, that mask that Harriet has 

is actually my suggestion because I started using one 

about 20 years ago because I had a problem driving through 

downtown Fort Worth every day, both directions. And 

usually when I got to work, my co-employees and a lot of 

my subordinates thought I was having a heart attack from 

all the coughing I was doing while I was clearing my 

lungs. 

Anyway, I wear that same type of mask all the 

time out on the roads. This is one of the reasons why I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

now drive an electric car. And what I'm also finding out 

is is that the State of Texas doesn't really like to have 

people driving electric cars because you're only set up to 

use electric charging stations here and there around the 

metroplex, which is pretty good because NRG and a couple 

of the other people are doing a pretty good job of setting 

them up. But Texas itself doesn't seem to be encouraging 

it. 

I've been trying to -- and I had a nice talk 

with the technical group here a little bit, although they 

weren't in that particular technical area. They gave me a 

name for a person who is. The idea is that we need to 

expand our capability of supporting electric 

transportation system. And anything that says, well, the 

electric grid cannot support it, means that you are saying 

that these coal-powered power plants are incapable of 

continuing to supply enough electricity for this 

civilization that we're trying to build here is capable of 

what it needs. 

Now, my suggestion is that state, starting with 

the TCEQ, make a recommendation to the legislature that 

says stop and remove all restrictions against solar power 

so we can start building the necessary electric power 

supplies that we need to have electric-powered 

transportation system as well as for our homes and 

13 
1 

2 

residences and businesses. Right now we are very close to 

the limit of the current electric power supply. And every 

3 time we talk about, okay, let's build more, but that would 

4 immediately run into your attainment problem. 

5' So you can't build coal-powered plants because 

6 they don't want to put the controls on them, but they also 

7 can't attain -- reach your attainment with them operating, 

8 so let's just scrap the coal-powered plants and start 

9 moving towards a solar-powered transportation system and a 

10 business and residential system. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

This is very easily done. Places like 

California has already started. Saudi Arabia is putting 

$135 billion over ten years into building a solar-powered 

system to replace their oil-powered electric generation 

stations. You know why? Because they want to ship more 

oil to the United States. So they are building solar 

power to replace their coal burners. 

We have the same problem here, but we've got 

coal burners. We need to start replacing them. They are 

not going to be around too much longer anyway, so you 

might as well start doing it. You might as well start 

making a recommendation that the legislature stop getting 

in the way. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Tom "Smitty" 

Smith followed by Karen Hadden followed by Jim Schermbeck. 

14 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

MR. SMITH: Good evening. My name is Tom 

Smith. I'm better known as Smitty. I'm director of 

Public Citizens Texas Office. I was thinking tonight how 

many years I've been appearing before the TCEQ asking 

y'all to take more stringent measures to clean up the air 

over Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, 

etcetera. I've got to say to you as staff, I thank you 

for all you folks do. What you're being asked to do is a 

thankless job because we all come and complain to you, and 

you put together plans that you think are going to meet 

the aspirations or the constraints put on your bosses by 

the governor or whomever is in charge of such things at 

that particular moment, and then you get complained at by 

your bosses for doing too much. And it's a thankless job. 

15 I know you're here with good intent to try and do what you 

16 can to make the best of a really bad situation and to put 

17 things in the reports that folks like us will take and 

18 hopefully go over to the legislature and maybe make some 

19 policy changes or that the EPA will latch upon and say, 

20 well, y'all can do a better job, and sooner or later you 

21 all get sued for not doing enough, and the circus goes on 

22 time after time. 

23 Meanwhile, the folks you've heard earlier can't 

24 breathe, and we end up having a cloud that never seems to 

25 go away over the Dallas/Fort Worth area. In fact, things 

15 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

were getting better for a while, and now they are getting 

worse again. Much to everybody's surprise, Houston's air 

is getting better than ours, than the air up in the 

Dallas/Fort Worth area, because the impact on the business 

community in the Houston area has been so significant that 

they got together and actually did something about air 

quality over there and began to do a number of measures 

that we suggested over time, and it's working. 

But not so in the Dallas/Fort Worth area because 

there are two big factors that folks have just never had 

the courage to stand up to: The electric power industry 

and the frackers and the oil companies behind them. While 

things were getting better here for a while, once they 

started turning on the fracking machines, the pollution 

just continued to rise significantly because the TCEQ 

didn't take actions in time to reduce air pollution enough 

to make a difference. 

Now, another big problem that y'all have been 

facing is, of course, the big electric power stations. 

And in your SIP, you talk about the tremendous progress 

that you have made from about 2001 to 2003 because the 

legislature told the electric utility companies to reduce 

air emissions from the power plants by 50 percent. And 

they did so, and they actually reduced air pollution in 

this part of the world by 58 percent from the big power 

16 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

plants. 

Now, why are the big power P,lants so important? 

Well, they are about 40 percent of the air pollution in 

the state of Texas comes from these power plants in the 

southeast, and it makes a big difference when you clean 

them up. But on a dollar-per-dollar basis, it's the 

cheapest way to reduce air pollution, and there are lots 

of other alternatives. 

Now, the SIP that you put together relies upon 

business as usual for these particular technologies. And 

the EPA has come in and said, it's time for business as 

usual to be over. They said, y'all need to make 

significant reductions. And they are cost affordable to 

do what's called SCRs, selective catalytic reduction, the 

same kind of technology that we've had in our cars since 

the 1970s on these old power plants built in the '70s and 

'80s. 

What's really stunning is in your own document, 

the indication is that the Dallas/Fort Worth area is not 

going to meet the 75-parts-per-billion standard because of 

monitors up at the Denton Airport. But when you really 

dig into the numbers, what you see is that you're about 

one point 1.67 parts per billion away from meeting that 

standard. And if you just put SCRs on those power plants 

as is going to be required by federal rules sooner or 

17 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

later, you would end up reducing those emissions by about 

2.4 parts per billion if you got a 90 percent reduction in 

the emissions from the big old coal plants to the south 

and east of you. 

It would work. You guys wouldn't be out of 

attainment, but there's not really much discussion in this 

document about doing so because the political power that 

these power plants and their companies and their investors 

have on the governor and the Republican Party in the state 

of Texas. At some point we're calling on you to do the 

job you've been hired for and to do a plan that finally 

works. 

In the intro to your SIP, there is an admission 

that is startling and shameful to all of us that you in 

this area -- that this area has never complied with a SIP, 

never met the goals in those SIPs. And it's time for you 

and your bosses at TCEQ to do what you were charged with, 

which is to reduce quality air pollution to a level 

that is safe for us all to breathe. 

In addition, we all worked really hard and we're 

all paying for the Texas Emission Reduction Program. And 

yet as opposed to being part of a measurable program of 

emission reduction that you can rely upon, even though we 

now have spent about a half a billion dollars and have 

made about 22 tons per day in reduction in emissions, 

18 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that's not part of the SIP. And although since 2003 every 

new home in Texas has had to meet better energy standards 

as part of the building codes and on average we've reduced 

about 22 percent of the energy and about 27 percent of the 

energy that's produced at peak, that's not part of the 

SIP. It's not part of the enforceable commitment. 

I don't understand why. Each of us is paying 

for that program, and the emissions reductions that have 

come from just the building code alone is enough to have 

eliminated one entire coal plant in terms of NOx 

emissions. It's important that you all take all of these 

tools that we have given you and put them into place and 

to quit running away from the fact that you have tools 

available that could actually make the SIP work for the 

Dallas/Fort Worth area for the first time in over 20 

years. Thank you very much. 

MS. DRISSELL: Karen Hadden followed by Jim 

Schermbeck followed by Lon Burnam. 

MS. HADDEN: Good evening. My name is 

Karen Hadden. I'm the director of the Sustainable Energy 

and Economic Development Coalition, or SEED Coalition, and 

we work statewide for clean air and clean energy. I 

appreciate you being here and realize that you aren't the 

ones that wrote this plan. I do hope that you will carry 

our message. 

19 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I believe that what is proposed is too little, 

too late, inadequate, and does not serve the health 

protection needs of the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It also 

does not do anything to help the people who are closest to 

some of the most polluting plants in the state and in many 

cases in the nation. 

I'm glad that this hearing is being held here 

because behind you is the nameplate for the mayor, Robert 

Cluck, and I remember really clearly something that he 

said previously. As a medical doctor, he could tell when 

there was a bad air day because he would get called into 

the hospital really early and not be able to get out of 

there for a long, long time. 

It's noticeably different. Our children are 

getting rushed to the emergency rooms because of air 

that's not safe to breathe. That's unconscionable, and 

it's time to take action. On one level, it doesn't matter 

the cost. And when you talk about the reasonable 

available control technology, that's not the standard we 

should be talking about. We should be talking about best 

available control technology and LAER, the lowest 

achievable emission reductions. That's what our children 

deserve. 

I also care about the elderly people who are 

impacted and those who have ongoing health issues with 

20 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

their heart and lungs. I recently was just a week ago 

with my mother in the hospital because she had pneumonia. 

Well, it does not help that the air quality is not what it 

should be, especially when you're with a life-threatening 

scenario like that. When you're 84, these things can kill 

you. 

You know, I'm becoming increasingly concerned 

because when I was younger, not everyone had asthma. Our 

kindergarten classrooms weren't with children that had 

inhalers. I remember there was one child in the whole 

elementary school who had asthma. It was an unusual 

thing. I cannot help but wonder if it's not the fact that 

we have pollution in the air that combines with the 

allergens that makes this a double whammy that's 

assaulting our systems. 

We have to live, and this -- the 

75-part-per-billion standard is not strong enough. It 

should be 60. That's what the EPA says, and that's what 

the Dallas/Fort Worth people deserve and the people that 

live in East Texas who are near the coal plants that 

should have had SCR technology 20, 30 years ago. This 

technology is in place in other parts of the country and 

other parts of the world. 

The cement kilns should be using this SCR 

technology. Holcim is willing to do it, and the TCEQ is 

21 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

looking the other way and refusing to acknowledge that and 

make it the baseline standard for the other cement kilns. 

That does nothing to help the people here. Overall, I 

think the proposal aims too low, leaves no margin for 

error. It requires no new controls on sources of air 

pollution. It is using outdated computer modeling, and it 

underestimates the Barnett Shale production pollution. 

These are serious failures, and I'm sure other 

people are going to elaborate on some of this. I want to 

read one statement. It's a paragraph here. And this is 

off of the fact sheet that the Downwinders At Risk 

prepared. I think it's an excellent fact sheet. 

"Despite five tries dating back to the 1990s, 

the TCEQ and its predecessors has never met a DFW federal 

smog cleanup deadline on time. Its last clean air plan 

proposed in 2011, which required no new controls on any 

major sources of air pollution, actually produced higher 

levels of ozone. This burns our lungs. Because of this 

record of failure, the state should be aiming lower than 

75 parts per billion just to be able to achieve that 

required level of reduction by 2018." 

So it's time to move forward. We're going to 

submit written comments that are more detailed and more 

technical, but I would urge you to carry the message that 

the health of our children, our elderly, and those with 

22 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

chronic lung problems be put first and foremost. We all 

have to breathe. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Jim Schermbeck 

followed by Lon Burnam followed by Sandra Den Braber. 

MR. SCHERMBECK: I don't know whether 

everybody has seen the movie ''Thank You For Smoking." 

It's a great little film about a guy whose job it is to 

lobby for the cigarette industry. And what you just heard 

are a couple of very generous people would be more or less 

a good German defense, but I'm not going to let y'all off 

that easy. One of the lines in the movie is that, well, 

you've got to pay the mortgage, and that justifies him 

going around and convoluting the arguments that cigarettes 

cause cancer. 

This is very much what I think TCEQ staff is 

doing the last five to six years in particular since you 

just quit trying to write up these plans. At least in the 

mid-aughts there was some attempt to be serious about it, 

but the last two SIPs were just pathetic. This is more of 

a hope than a plan. There is no planning in this plan. 

You are waiting for the federal gasoline mix to come down 

in 2017 and hope you get the result by the summer of 2018. 

You're not even doing anything until that gasoline mix 

takes effect. 

I just want to read into the record the 

23 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

definitions -- the EPA definitions of reasonable available 

control measures and reasonable available control 

technologies because I think they are going to be very 

important in the future when we go to visit EPA and if we 

have to sue over this plan. 

The plan's revisions, this is a quote, "Required 

to be submitted under this part shall comply with each of 

the following: In general, such plan provision shall 

provide for the implementation of all reasonable available 

control measures as expeditiously as practicable, 

including such reductions in emissions from existing 

sources in the area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control 

technology, and shall provide for attainment of the 

national primary ambient air quality standards. To show 

that RACM, reasonably available control measures, are 

being implemented as expeditiously as practical, the state 

must explain why the selected implementation schedule is 

the earliest schedule based on the specific circumstances 

of that area." You don't have to wait until 2008. If you 

wanted to, you could speed this up. Not much chance of 

that happening with this plan. "Such claims cannot be 

general claims that more time is needed but rather should 

be specifically grounded in evidence of economic or 

technological infeasibility." 

24 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

That's the definition. And as opposed to RACM, 

RACT, the control technology itself, is considered -- is 

not even a factor. Advancing the time line is not even a 

factor because the benefit of that technology is presumed 

under the Federal Clean Air Act. 

I just want to take three examples where this is 

clearly not happening in this plan. One is SCR on kilns. 

If you read this plan, this is all stuff that's very 

superficial in their denials of why this applies to these 

sources, none more so than SCR in kilns. It talks about 

the 2006, the study on SCR. This is a study, by the way, 

that we forced them Downwinders forced them to do. And 

they quote from the parts of the study that talk about the 

criticisms of SCR and problems of SCR. 

There is no quote in this plan from the 

conclusions of that study. Let me read that to you. The 

conclusions are that SCR -- this is, by the way, a quote. 

"SCR is available technology for dry kilns, commercially 

available and in use on similar types of cement plants. 

It can cut 80 to 85 percent of the NOx pollution, and the 

cost is $2,000 per ton." I dare say that's come down 

since then, as opposed to $13,000 per ton that this agency 

has supported in terms of TERP provisions, other kinds of 

controls. 

The second reason is because the EPA says it's 

25 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

not feasible ,as of 2010. This must be the first time the 

State of Texas has taken the EPA's word for anything, 

especially over industry, because there are six working 

examples of SCR in cement plants in Europe, some of them 

owned by Lafarge and Holcim that own cement plants in this 

country. 

SCR is, according to Cemex and other cement 

companies, a proven effective control technology for 

cement plant. And not even mentioned in this permit, in 

this SIP, is the fact that Holcim is applying for SCR to 

be built in Ellis County right now. That's not even 

mentioned. 

It's the first time that this agency must have 

taken the word of the EPA over industry. It's just 

incredible. Same thing is true of electric compressors. 

If you look at what they say about why they can't be 

electrified, it's all assertions. They've done no 

studies. There is no information in this SIP to justify 

the assertions that this is not practical, that you cannot 

do this, that it will not lead to further NOx reductions. 

The same thing is true on SCR on coal plants. 

They just dismiss the fact that, well, we're going to be 

close enough anyway, so we don't need to consider SCR on 

the coal plants. It's not even worth our trouble. 

There's no analysis there. This plan wouldn't even pass a 

26 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

college engineering test. 

So what I'm asking you to do now is just, if you 

would, everybody that's wearing one of these badges or 

wants to wear one -- this is an illegal plan. And what 

this means is that we're going to get up and start 

enforcing the law ourselves. So I just want -- this will 

be the most empowering thing you do all evening. Please 

just get up and raise your right hand here and follow me, 

if you would. 

(Audience repeats after speaker) 

MR. SCHERMBECK: I pledge to do my duty as 

a citizen to uphold the Clean Air Act and take 

responsibility to provide cleaner air to over 6 million 

residents in the Dallas/Fort Worth nonattainment area, 

especially since the State of Texas doesn't seem to give a 

damn anymore. I pledge to help persuade the federal 

marshals at the EPA to make Texas follow the law and bring 

safe and legal air to Dallas/Fort Worth by rejecting this 

God awful plan submitted by the state and substituting one 

of its own. 

That's okay. For the purposes of swearing in, 

you are all now deputized, and you can all now help us 

enforce this plan by going to visit Ron Purdy over at the 

EPA in the next couple of months. We're going to try to 

get the federal government to own up to its own wording 

27 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

because the state is not serious about this. 

Now, it's hard to beat this event for comedy, 

but if you will, get a flyer on the way out because 

there's a fundraiser tonight just four blocks down the 

street here for Ron Burnam. It's a roasting and toasting 

of his career, 18 years. He's been around almost as long 

as some of us in terms of this fight and longer than some 

of us. Please join us if you can. It's just down the 

street. It will raise money for us to do this work 

keeping in the field and so forth, and it honors Lon as 

well. 

I know it's frustrating to come to these things. 

We don't expect much from these folks. It's these folks 

at the EPA that we have to appeal to from here on out. 

It's their work that's going to make a difference. Thank 

you very much. 

MS. DRISSELL: Lon Burnam followed by 

Sandra Den Braber followed by Lance Irwin. 

MR. BURNAM: Hi. I'm Lon Burnam. I live 

in Fort Worth. Since I was nine years old, I was asking 

my parents what's in the air outside that's making me sick 

and keeps me from breathing. 39 years ago, January 39 

years ago, my dad said, let's go to this meeting and talk 

about cleaning up the air. So happy anniversary, guys. 

I've been coming to these meetings longer than some of you 

28 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

have been on the planet just trying to get the TCEQ to do 

its job. 

And we can do the whole spectrum of analogies, 

ostriches, SS not willing to own up to their own sins. 

But I'm not going to try to kill the messenger because I 

know you need that paycheck, but you're not doing your 

job. You're not earning it. And I know why you're not 

doing it. Because fewer than 30 percent of the registered 

voters in this state bothered to vote. When you have that 

level of citizen participation, you have a plutocracy. 

You do not have a demodracy. 

We do not had a functioning democracy in this 

state for over a decade, and that's not your fault. It is 

your fault that this plan sucks. It's illegal, and we're 

going to enforce the law. I've just taken an oath to make 

sure that the law is enforced, and I'm going to focus on 

this law. 

Let me tell you, it's really, really, really 

tiring to do the same thing over and over again for 39 

years. I mean, I don't know, maybe all of you at TCEQ 

don't even have 39 years at the agency collectively. But 

before I went to that hearing, I did an internship with 

the old Texas Air Control Board. What I figured out then 

when I was a junior in college and looking at the numbers 

about the smelters out in El Paso, the industrialists in 

29 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

this state do not give a damn about public health and they 

risk thousands of poor, low-income Latino children's lives 

because it maximizes profit. 

That's what this plan does. It is designed to 

maximize the profit of the frackers. I pronounce that 

with an A, but you know what I mean. It's wrong. You're 

wrong to not do your job. And just like African-Americans 

in the south, we're going to have to-- in the middle of 

the last century, we're going to have to appeal to our 

national government because it is very, very clear that 

this fundamentally racist and wrong-headed state 

government needs intervention from our national 

government. Thank you for your time. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Sandra Den 

Braber followed by Lance Irwin followed by Tracy Casto. 

MS. DEN BRABER: My name is Sandra Den 

Braber. I live in Arlington. One of the biggest concerns 

I have is that you don't address the pollution coming from 

natural gas drilling, especially the shale area. Nowhere 

have I ever seen drilling done in urban areas the way it 

has been done here, and no one has protected us, 

especially with that pollution. And when you have that 

pollution added to all the other pollution, it makes the 

air here very, very unclean and unhealthy. 

I just wish that you could suddenly have a light 

30 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

bulb go off in your head and do something to protect the 

people's health and safety rather than cater to the people 

that give money to the government and control, and they're 

lobbying for you to protect them and their money and not 

the citizens and our health. And I just ask you to take 

some time and really think about what you do because right 

now, I don't trust the TCEQ, and I would really like to 

see them do something positive for a change rather than 

use something that is not acceptable and will not protect 

us. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Lance Irwin. Is 

Lance Irwin here? 

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: He left. 

MS. DRISSELL: Okay. And I called Tamera 

Bounds, but actually you marked it out. Does Tamera want 

to speak? 

MS. BOUNDS: Why not. At first I wasn't 

going to speak tonight. I'm from Mansfield. I live at 

1009 Merriweather Drive in Mansfield, Texas. I'm also on 

the board of Mansfield Gas Well Awareness. We're also 

working with the Mansfield City Council to update our 

ordinances to be more protective of our residents in that 

area. 

What I want to share with you is a couple of 

things that's my story, and my personal relationship that 

31 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I've had with TCEQ has been very bad. We live next to 16 

gas wells and a major compressor site. And the times that 

we have called for TCEQ to come out because we couldn't 

breathe, our eyes were burning, we had some people that 

had sore throats and bloody noses, it took two days, and 

I've recorded up to three days, before someone come out to 

even take a sample. 

We've had water pollution. And, of course, I 

was told that you guys don't test water, that is from the 

Texas Railroad Commission, but it would have been nice to 

have known that at the time instead of waiting three days 

later until someone got out there to then inform me that 

it was the Texas Railroad Commission's problem to do that. 

I'm new at this. I've only been doing this for 

about a year and a half, so I'm very young at doing this 

with all of this. But I have a granddaughter that has 

developed asthma. She's nine years old. She goes to 

school here in Arlington, but she's a Mansfield schobl. 

And half the time she can't breathe, especially when they 

are £racking over there. 

TCEQ, you have no teeth here in the state of 

Texas from what I have seen. And I'm just one, but I see 

that all the responses are the same. They are vague, no 

violation. We did actually catch a violation from Eagle 

Ridge, but you didn't cite them. They weren't fined. So 

32 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I, too, represent this group and stand united with them 

because I don't have any faith in your system. You don't 

have any regulatory teeth here, and you are -- from my 

perspective, from what I see, you're a regulatory capture. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Tracy Casto 

followed by Kim Feil followed by John MacFarlane. 

MS. CASTO: I'm Tracy Casto. I'm not a 

physician, but I'm representing 45,000 physicians, members 

of the Texas Medical Association, and 7,500 who are 

members of the Dallas County Medical Society, and I live 

in Arlington. 

I have to read this instead of speak it because 

it was written by one of our very cerebral physicians. 

"On August 14, 2013, Dallas County Medical 

Society with the support of the Texas Medical 

Association and environmental groups submitted a 

petition to TCEQ for rule change. We basically 

asked you to require that the three vintage 1970 

coal plants in East Texas that are owned by 

Energy Future Holdings to reduce their air 

pollution emissions to current EPA standards to 

protect our patients in North Texas from asthma, 

chronic lung disease, and premature death that 

these emissions have caused. That was in August 

33 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of 2013, In October of 2013, the TCEQ rejected 

our petition for rule change. They didn't 

question the scientific merits of our argument 

that the change was necessary to protect public 

health, but rather they said, just wait until we 

bring this up in the SIP process to begin in 

January" -- this month -- "and then we will deal 

with your concerns. Well, we took that as a 

commitment to reduce the dangerous NOx emissions 

from the coal plants either by requiring them to 

retrofit their plants with SCR 

pollution-reducing technology or convert them to 

natural gas, which has been done in Texas and 

elsewhere in the country. Well, when the draft 

of this SIP was released, our physicians were 

dismayed, and that was a very kind word, to find 

that the plan contained no measures that would 

deal with the concerns we had expressed. In 

short, the draft calls for no action to reduce 

NOx emissions from the three plants. Even 

worse, the plan states that SCR technology, 

which has been applied all over the country and 

in other places in Texas and would reduce the 

emissions by 90 percent, y'all said is not worth 

the cost. On the contrary, the experts that 

34 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we've consulted assured us that SCR technology 

is quite feasible for application in these 

plants and all that is needed is for TCEQ to 

require it. We therefore reject TCEQ's 

contention that SCR technology is not worth the 

cost. Our research on air quality shows that 

certain areas in the metroplex still have among 

the highest ozone levels in the country. 

Although ozone levels have dropped significantly 

after the cement plants and other measures were 

put into place, there have been no improvement 

other than the random fluctuations due to a 

couple of atypical, cool, rainy summers. In 

fact, a new study of air quality in Texas shows 

that since 2007, the ozone levels in Dallas, 

Arlington, and Fort Worth are not decreasing. 

In fact, the ozone levels have been increasing 

over and above the random fluctuations caused by 

the weather. Our analysis of the EPA's air 

monitoring data finds that ozone levels in parts 

of the metroplex exceeded the current EPA 

standard of 75 PPB multiple days each summer. 

In our hottest, driest summers, sometimes 10 to 

20 days, sometimes reaching 90 to 100 PPBs. To 

physicians in our areas, each of these days is a 

35 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

serious threat to our pediatric patients who 

have asthma and come in, our elderly patients 

with emphysema, and our middle-aged patients 

like me with coronary heart disease. In 

conclusion, the physicians of Dallas County 

Medical Society are dismayed, frustrated, upset, 

incredulous by TCEQ's rejection of our petition 

for rule change by deferring to the SIP process 

and then taking no action in the draft of the 

SIP, even characterizing SCR as not worth the 

cost. It now appears that the rejection of our 

proposal was merely a delay tactic with no 

intention to act on the serious public health 

threat that we explained in our petition. We 

remind the commissioners that Clean Air Act 

requires states to use all reasonably available 

control technologies to get our dangerous ozone 

levels to safe levels as quickly as possible. 

We respectfully urge you to reconsider the draft 

SIP and build into it the change in the NOx 

emission limits for these three coal plants that 

we suggested in our petition." 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Kim Feil 

followed by John MacFarlane. 

MS. FElL: I'm Kim Feil, and I blog on 

36 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Barnettshalehell.wordpress.com. I live here in Arlington, 

and I want to make this real simple. Flowback at all 

stages has VOC. VOC contributes to ozone. Flowback 

happens during natural gas extraction. Flowback happens 

in our backyard. VOC happens in our backyard. Area ozone 

happens in our backyards. Ozone damages our lungs in our 

own backyards. 

TCEQ needs to account for additional emissions 

for catastrophic damages caused by broken gas pipelines 

and other fire hazards such as explosive storage tanks 

from earthquakes. We've been having a lot of earthquakes, 

and we're going to see more accidents rise. So you need 

to add that in your modeling. You can't add accidents? 

But yes, you can. You need to because they do happen. 

Dallas had numerous water main breaks from the 

Irving quakes recently. Today I surveyed numerous 

businesses north of Cowboy Stadium with recent damage to 

doorways and walls. One crack had almost a 2-inch 

fracture. TCEQ employees need to figure out a way to keep 

your jobs because we pay your salaries. But, you know, I 

see it this way: Businesses and families will eventually 

stay away from investing in an area that has cracked walls 

and floors, that has poor air quality, is earthquake 

prone, could have chain reaction explosions. 

So why do I subscribe to accidents and the 

37 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

what-ifs? Because they happen so regularly now. Just 

yesterday near Midland, a car with inmates being 

transported hit ice on the road and then came off the 

ravine and hit a train. What were the odds? They happen. 

On January 1 or January 2 in Arlington, an SUV hit a 

propane truck on I-20, and that was near a gas well pad 

site that was thought to have been in flowback. That was 

an explosive situation. Had the propane tank exploded 

near the storage tanks or, God forbid, the open hatch 

flowback tanks, we would have had a huge area engulfed in 

smoke. Smoke is particulates. Particulates exacerbate 

ozone. We have the VOC and the NOx. 

Everywhere you have a gas well on the road and a 

gas station and an airport mixing with all these gasses, 

you've got the propensity to have these horrific accidents 

with horrific emissions and things to exacerbate ozone. 

Modeling needs to account for the accidents that will 

happen. So when we miss our ozone goal in 2018, it's 

going to be our lungs that suffer, that TCEQ did not 

provide for the smoke events that do happen and are more 

common now. 

Here in Arlington, we've got this GM plant. 

That is ground zero for ozone, and GM has their own gas 

well pad sites on their property. They've got lift 

compressors. And no one at TCEQ is modeling what 

38 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

synergistic effects having gas wells near car painting 

does to NOx and VOCs. There's no air monitors there. So 

our ground zero GM polluter with the gas wells mixed in 

with the cement kiln plants pluming this way, no one is 

looking at that in our ozone SIP. So we've got this 

cement plume, GM, frac on crack ozone risk because we 

don't know the effects. Please err on cautionary 

principle and account for added emissions from the 

accidents that happen. 

And I just want to let you know the last eight 

years of my life have been spent documenting my efforts at 

the state, local, and federal area government areas to 

stop this and show that we have sent letters, we have 

showed up at the hearings and we're doing everything we 

can. We elect our officials. We pay our taxes. Our 

taxes keep you employed. 

I've seen my husband get cancer, my teen suffer 

depression, get rashes, I get nosebleeds, asthma. All 

that started out to fracking. I have too much invested in 

my home to move away. This time your SIP needs to matter 

because our lives matter. Now that the price of crude is 

so low, let the dominoes fall. Because in the end, the 

renewables will rise to the top, and you guys need to be 

the leaders in helping us get all the infrastructure in 

place for this solar to take off. Boom and bust happens 

39 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

in the oil and gas industry. Ozone doesn't have to 

happen. TCEQ, please do your job. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Don MacFarlane 

followed by Dewayne Quartermous. 

MR. MACFARLANE: Hi. My name is John 

MacFarlane. I'm an executive committee member of the 

Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club and a resident of Fort 

Worth. I'm the conservation chair of the Greater Fort 

Worth Sierra Club as well. I live within half a mile of 

the gas pad site on Hill Street in north central Fort 

Worth. I have two children, ages six and two. I'm 

concerned about their long-term health in relation to 

ground level ozone and emissions from natural gas sites in 

the metroplex. In fact, my school son's Montessori is 

only 500 feet from that same gas pad site. 

I'm providing these comments on behalf of 

myself, my family, and the Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club. 

The emissions of gas production of the Barnett Shale are 

being severely underrepresented and underregulated. Many 

scientists have determined and agreed that there is a 

large amount of ozone formation in north central Texas due 

to the exponential increase in oil and gas production. 

NOx and VOC emissions are also increasing due to the 

number of diesel-fired engines, compressor engines. 

TCEQ must develop reasonable available control 

40 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

measures in the DFW area for these major sources of 

emissions. TCEQ must also get an accurate count on the 

number of gas wells, compressor stations, and compressor 

engines. Without an accurate count, emission models will 

not accurately reflect the amount of ozone-forming 

emissions spewing from these sites. 

In addition, there is clearly a need to require 

both existing and future gas wells capture methane and 

other emissions from leakage from pneumatic devices. TCEQ 

and the Railroad Commission should require the following 

measures on any new and existing gas wells, gas wells and 

compression stations. These measures are clean emissions 

technology we're all aware of, improve detection 

technology, compressor station maintenance, and low lead 

or no bleed pneumatic controllers. 

The 75-parts-per-billion ozone criteria is 

obsolete and will not protect human health. The EPA has 

considered lowering the level to 60 parts per billion. 

The State of Texas should aim in this plan to achieve an 

ozone level of at least 65 to better protect public 

health. According to the EPA statistics, strengthening 

the standard to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion will 

provide significantly better protection for children, 

preventing up to 960,000 asthma attacks and for up to 1 

million missed school days and will better protect both 

41 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

children and adults by preventing more than 4300 premature 

deaths, 4300 asthma-related emergency room visits, and up 

to 180,000 missed workdays. 

I don't want my children as one of these 

statistics. I don't want my children to develop asthma 

because of the bad air that is in the metroplex. 

TCEQ has not required new controls on any 

sources of pollution including East Texas coal plants, 

Midlothian cement plants, industrial boilers, steel mills, 

brick kilns, lime kilns, and the Barnett Shale gas 

facilities. 

The prevailing wind in North Texas is southerly 

and southeasterly; thus, smog-forming compounds are 

floating into North Texas from the cement plants in 

Midlothian and the coal plants in East Texas. Requiring 

SCR on these sources would have a measurable impact on air 

pollution in North Texas. 

A presentation by Neal Ash Stool to the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments noted that targeted 

optirn~zed control technology in Fort Worth's early morning 

hours will significantly lower ozone formation in the 

afternoons. We're also going to submit written comments 

by February 11 from the Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club and 

as a resident of Fort Worth. So with that, I'd like to 

thank you for your time and hope you will seriously 

42 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

consider and help our children instead of allowing 

polluting industries free reign. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Dewayne -- how 

do you pronounce it? Quartermous? 

MR. QUARTERMOUS: My name is Dewayne 

Quartermous. I live in Arlington. I'm the vice-chair for 

the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club. So basically 

this SIP that y'all have drawn up is just business as 

usual. There's no changes. There's no rules, no measures 

taken. The only thing is basically we'll let the EPA do 

what they are going to do and that will maybe possibly by 

some prayer make the standard we're supposed to do. 

And the rule -- the way the business as usual, 

the way this thing is happening is that it's supposed to 

be pro business. It's not pro business. It's only pro 

the old crony business, the bad neighbor business, the 

ones who don't care about the public, the polluters, 

because the air in DFW has cost DFW tens of millions of 

dollars in companies that don't move here, manufacturing 

plants that don't get built here because they don't want 

to deal with the increased chance that we'll get out of 

attainment and the EPA will start making more restrictions 

on them, so they put it somewhere else. There's Fortune 

500 companies that did not move their headquarters here 

because they are concerned about their employees' quality 

43 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of life. 

The previous speaker spoke about the health 

effects. Those health costs are borne by not only the 

public but by businesses. So this isn't pro business. 

It's certainly not pro public and pro public health. So 

it's just pro dirty polluters. That's all it is. And 

there's plenty of technologies that everybody knows about 

that can be put in place that are minimal cost, and they 

should be put in place. If Texas really wants to be pro 

business, they should be pro business and pro public 

health. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Keith Annis 

followed by Ken Sambell. 

MR. ANNIS: I'll be submitting written. 

MS. DRISSELL: Okay. Ken Sambell? 

MR. SAMBELL: Good evening. My name is Ken 

Sambell. I live in southwest Arlington, a resident here 

for over 50 years. And I've seen the air go, of course, 

from pristine state to the present brown cloud. And when 

the wind is from the south, the fumes from Midlothian hit 

my garden fair and square, and white ash rains down. 

Sometimes white ash, sometimes black ash. It's very 

disturbing. So I urge you to use current best technology 

to get the SBR down below 75 if possible. It's despicable 

with this technology is being used in Europe and not being 

44 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

used in Texas. So please do all that's possible. Thank 

you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Becky Bornhorst. 

Is Becky here? Becky Bornhorst? She did leave? Is it 

Susybelle or Susybelle? 

MS. GOSSLEE: Susybelle. 

MS. DRISSELL: Susybelle Gosslee followed 

by Liz Wally. 

MS. GOSSLEE: Thank you. I'm Susybelle 

Gosslee. I'm speaking on behalf of the League of Women 

Voters of Dallas. And I want to thank you, the employees 

of TCEQ, who work hard to protect public health and the 

environment. So thank you. 

Deaths from ozone pollution in the DFW area rank 

second in the country behind the number of deaths in the 

northeast from ozone pollution. This is intolerable, and 

the TCEQ can save lives by addressing this issue. 

Citizens depend on the TCEQ and the EPA to 

protect them from destruction by pollution. The science 

exists to protect the air we breathe. Environmental 

damage and serious health problems continue to exist. 

Dirty air is not the alternative to food on the table or 

the availability of jobs. The options are not either/or. 

The options are both/and. We can have clean air and food 

and jobs. 

45 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

More needs to be done to protect the public. 

68 percent of the time the wind in the DFW area is from 

the southeast. This southeast wind brings air pollution 

from Big Brown Coal, Martin Lake in Monticello, into this 

area. Many young people of childbearing age who are in 

the family-forming stage of life are moving into the 

Dallas area, Dallas County. Dallas County's population 

has grown at a faster annual rate since 2010 than it did 

in the decade from 2000 to 2010. 

All people, especially youngsters, are 

particularly vulnerable to ozone pollution. The pollution 

in the DFW, Arlington region grow more than any other --

grew more than any other metropolitan area in the country 

between July 2011 and '12. There are millions of people 

of all ages who need to breathe clean air, and you can 

make it happen. 

Ozone above us in the stratosphere protects us 

from solar radiation. But when it is where we live at 

ground level, it contaminates our lungs. Ozone is oxygen 

gone bad. Ozone can cause health problems such as throat 

irritation, reduced lung function, inflammation in 

airways, and cardiac problems. Cutting ozone will protect 

the public from its harmful health problems. 

Another pollutant, particle pollution or 

particulate matter, is killing people and causes the light 

46 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

brown haze that hangs over Texas. I think of the people 

that say, oh, what a beautiful sunset, and they don't 

realize how much of that is the air they are breathing 

that is polluted. 

C. Ardent Pope, III, discovered in Utah Valley 

that there were fewer deaths and hospitalizations when 

their local steel mill closed. They saw measurable lung 

and cardiac defects increase when the mill was opened. 

The smallest particles have the most damaging lung and 

cardiac effect. 

The TCEQ can improve air quality and particulate 

matter in our area. The Office of Management and Budget 

found in 2007 that there's a savings of cleaning up 

particles over the previous ten years. Research provides 

a scientific basis for stronger particulate matter 

standards. The cost of cleaning up particles over the 

previous ten years provides an estimated savings in terms 

of health impacts of between 4 and $40 billion per year. 

All other regulations pale compared to the impacts of 

particulate matter to the benefits of cleaning up our air. 

Cities which clean their air increased life 

expectancy, even allowing for other variables. Mixtures 

of chemicals in the air create an impact also such as 

climate change, and we have not fully investigated the 

impacts of all of these mixes of chemicals. 

47 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

We all need clean air to save public health, 

economic health, and environmental health. The League of 

Women Voters supports state governments and the TCEQ's 

action for control of air pollution in North Texas and 

throughout Texas. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

has the power to set and enforce standards stricter than 

those required by the federal government. Adequate 

funding should be made available by the Texas legislature 

to carry out the research, planning, and enforcement of 

regulations to protect the public's health and the 

environment. The league supports legislation that allows 

local and regional governments to set and enforce 

standards stricter than those of the state and encourages 

citizens to be involved in the rulemaking and enforcement 

process. 

The LWV U.S. president, Elizabeth MacNamara, 

states, "Any action to block the EPA from updating the 

Clean Air Act protections or any delay on behalf of the 

administration to avoid implementing clean air and 

industrial pollution requirements is an attack on the 

health of our children and families, plain and simple." 

Thank you for your attention. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Liz Wally 

followed by Cheryl Boswell. 

48 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. WALLY: Thank you for holding this 

meeting. Really, I'm going to be brief. I was on the 

Dallas Planning Commission when we did the gas drilling 

ordinance not too long ago. I've come to a number of TCEQ 

and EPA meetings. And I learned being on the other side, 

being on the planning commission, making decisions, how 

very difficult it is for staff and actually for the people 

who would normally -- for the appointed people on the 

committee who really are not experts in the area and need 

to learn something about the topic itself. And we learned 

a lot from the people who had spoken, and we frequently 

have people who showed up who used words I didn't even 

understand who had to learn them themselves because of 

what had happened to them. It's very impressive. But the 

main thing I learned was about process. 

Corporations are not evil. Corporations are 

formed in order to bring shareholder value. They are 

amoral. And like developers, corporations push for the 

best profit they can get. That is appropriate. That is 

what they're supposed to do. But the way it's supposed to 

work is that there's a balance. And the balance is 

government, is agencies like yours, to say, almost like to 

a teenager, okay, here is the time you're supposed to be 

back, supposed to negotiate, but there will be a rule and 

you must follow that rule. 

49 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

One of the things I watched over the last four 

years while I was doing this is the constant comment of, 

we followed your guidelines, we did what the zoning said, 

we did what your organization said, we followed what was 

said. And behind that comment is, you could have said 

something else and we would have adjusted to follow it. 

What I'm asking for you to do is to take the 

side of the community so that the corporation is given the 

guidance of what they need to do to produce what the 

community needs. That's what these people have asked for. 

Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Cheryl Boswell. 

MS. BOSWELL: Good evening. Thank you. 

I'm Cheryl Boswell, vice-president and executive director 

of the Health and Wellness Alliance with the Children's 

Health System. The Health and Wellness Alliance for 

Children was established by Children's Health, Children's 

Medical Center as you may know it, and represents a broad 

coalition of more than 40 powerful community 

organizations. We're determined to measurably improve the 

health and well-being of children in North Texas region. 

We are urgently determined to make a measurable 

difference in the lives, focused on the most pressing 

issues that assault these children every day. Our current 

priority is the devastating impact of childhood asthma in 

50 
1 our community. Our goal is to ignite each of you to bold 

2 action around the impact of poor air quality on our 

3 children and especially these children with asthma. 

4 Our specific message to you today is that 

5 consistently high ozone levels across the North Texas 

6 region are impacting the well-being of all children and 

7 endangering the lives of our children burdened by asthma. 

8 Our position on air pollution in children's health: 

9 Doctors and scientists with the Health and Wellness 

10 Alliance for Children who represent Children's Medical 

11 Center, Cook Children's Medical Center, and Medical City 

12 Children's Hospital know that the Dallas/Fort Worth 

13 region's ozone layers are a major public health concern 

14 for children. 

15 We need to think of poor air quality as an 

16 assault on children's well-being that makes it much harder 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

for them to live healthy, successful lives. For those 

with asthma, it can be hard to live at all. The current 

goal of 75 parts per billion by 2018 is insufficient from 

a medical point of view because of the scientific evidence 

driving the push to lower the federal standard. We should 

be aiming lower to benefit public health sooner. 

Did you know asthma is one of the most common 

chronic long-term diseases in childhood? Nationally, an 

estimated 7.1 million children have asthma. Annual costs 

51 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

for asthma in the U.S. reached $56 billion. In Texas, 

approximately 556,000 children have asthma. Approximately 

180,000 children in Dallas and Tarrant Counties have 

asthma. One three-day hospitalization for asthma can cost 

$7,300, while one visit to a pediatric care provider to 

manage that would cost just a bit less, like $100. In 

2012, nearly 1,500 children in Dallas County visited an 

emergency room or were admitted to a hospital due to 

asthma. Annual economic costs to Dallas County, including 

costs to families in medical care facilities across the 

community, is estimated to be a staggering $60 million. 

Asthma is more common among older children than 

younger children, yet the rate of asthma hospitalization 

is much higher among young children. Asthma 

hospitalization rates among non-Hispanic black children 

were significantly higher than other race or ethnic groups 

in Public Health Region 3. That's North Texas. 

Childhood asthma hospitalization rates were 

higher among boys and younger children in PHR 3 in Texas. 

Most children with asthma have missed school because of 

their asthma. Dallas County has the highest number of 

child asthma hospitalizations. Among children aged 0 to 

17, 9,280 asthma-related hospitalizations were reported in 

2011. 45 percent of child asthma hospitalizations 

occurred among children 0 to 4 years of age. 

52 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Total charges for pediatric asthma 

hospitalizations in 2011: Texas, 172.9 million; PHR, 53.9 

million; Dallas County, 32 million. 

Mortality rates per 100,000 for asthma among 

children: Texas, 89 deaths; PHR, 29 deaths; Dallas 

County, 12 deaths. Prevalence of current asthma in 

children is higher in boys than girls: Texas, 11.2 

percent boys, 8.9 percent girls; in North Texas, 

8.6 percent boys, 7.4 percent girls. Prevalence of 

chronic asthma among children by race: 8.2 white; 6.6 

Hispanic; 11.7 African-American; 7.9 other. Prevalence of 

current asthma among children by age: 0 to 4, 5.3; age 5 

to 9, 10.3; 10 to 14, 8.6; 15 to 17, 9.4. 

So, I want to tell you a story about a little 

boy. His name is Kellin Boyd, and he was only ten years 

old when an asthma attack after football practice took his 

life. But his mom still remembers him as a little man 

with big aspirations. Kellin often said to himself, good 

morning Mister Millionaire, recalls his mom, Rhonda 

Mitchell. Kellin's dreams never came true. The risk of 

going out to play can represent a life-and-death decision 

for parents of children with asthma like Kellin's mom. Do 

I send him to football practice today, or is the air too 

bad for him to play? Could he die as a result? 

So I thank you for this opportunity to think 

53 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

about what you're putting in your plan. I don't know all 

about that, but I represent the kids and the families of 

Tarrant and Dallas County. I represent your grand-kids 

and your nieces and your nephews and all those folks that 

we love. So make a decision on behalf of our children so 

they can live a long, fruitful life. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. I don't have 

anyone else that indicated they wanted to give comments. 

Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. Did you 

sign in earlier? 

MR. DUNCAN: I signed in, but I didn't 

check. 

MS. DRISSELL: Okay. State your name for 

the record. 

MR. DUNCAN: I'm Jim Duncan. 

MS. DRISSELL: Come up to the mike. Jim 

Duncan? 

MR. DUNCAN: My name is Jim Duncan. I'm 

chairman of the North Texas Chapter of the American Solar 

Energy Society, nonprofit organization. I've heard a 

number of people this afternoon talk about, mention solar 

power and renewable energy. I wanted to bring something 

to the attention of this room that just happened. 

The City of North Richland Hills, which is here 

in Tarrant County, community of about 25 or 30,000 people, 

54 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

discovered that their city council had passed a very 

onerous ordinance that would have made the installation of 

residential solar systems on -- would have made it a lot 

more time consuming and expensive and would discourage a 

lot of people from installing -- potentially installing 

solar. 

So many people are outraged that they decided to 

file a petition kind of following the model that happened 

in Dallas -- in Denton months ago. So they discovered 

that they had only 30 days from December 15 to get this 

petition. They had to use only residents, and they could 

only get signatures from residents who had voted in the 

last election. They had 30 days to do it. They had to 

have over 750 names. 

Well, between December 15 and January 14, we had 

Christmas holidays, we had New Year's, we had a lot of 

really nasty weather. So this group of volunteers had 

actually six days of nice weather where they were out 

knocking on doors and asking for signatures at public 

locations around North Richland Hills. So over six days, 

they got over 850 names to sign the petition. People were 

just really outraged when they heard what the city had 

done. 

So now there's going to be either -- either the 

city council will be forced to reverse the ordinance or 

55 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

they will have to have a citywide referendum within 30 

days, ask the public if they want solar, if they want this 

ordinance in place or not. 

The only reason I'm telling you this is to let 

you know that people in North Texas want solar. People 

know what solar does. They know it reduces their electric 

bill. It's clean energy. We're fighting for it. 

Our nonprofit is working to educate people about 

solar. It's going to happen. It's going to come to North 

Texas. If it's ever going to replace power source for 

natural gas, well, I kind of doubt that. But if people 

want solar, it's available, it's affordable, and everybody 

should look into it. I want to thank y'all for being here 

and listening to everybody go on and on and take to heart 

what we've said. That's about it. Thank you. 

MS. DRISSELL: Thank you. Do I have anyone 

else? All right. If not, earlier I did rnisspeak. Donna 

corrected me. They will be accepting comments until 

February 11. There is a handout on the table out there 

with instructions on how to do that if you're unsure. I 

appreciate you all for corning. Thank you. 

(WHEREUPON HEARING CONCLUDED 

AT 8:00P.M., JANUARY 15, 2015) 

56 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 

I, Tobi Moreland, Certified Shorthand Reporter in 

and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the 

following: 

That the foregoing hearing was duly reported by 

the officer and that the transcript of the proceedings is 

a true record of all statements given by the witnesses; 

Sworn to by me this ____ day of --------------' 2015. 

Tobi L. Moreland, CSR #3317 

Expires on 12/31/15 

INTEGRITY LEGAL SUPPORT SOLUTIONS 

CRCB #528 

3100 West Slaughter Lane 

Suite A-101 

Austin, Texas 78748 

( 512) 320-8 690 

57 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

~F;.~-t~h ch 0t:rh ~tf\_, 1) \="" 0 _.R 't c1 ; or- -t) C \)-(\ <:QJv-ru.V GNo c:ch-!_~ 

~ ffc.7fT/CJ __Lrby DFW RCL ~~No 

·yf1\!1Y Co-c/fP tDl:ffy ~~rr.. Crt~;lc k& s-> //~ e. · Yes No ._:_::;:,; 

·rotn r; S rnH-\11 '

1 5rn I ~+\_ 'f "Jo t l c tl-h zet/L- (9No 

I @No - )~vV\ tt-rwt~ S E[D t.c>aJ~·fi fJV\__ 

---- l ~~~iL\o \~l~~ VDvvn t;J1' r\A[r_s, Yes~ 

'--) 

- }(p (/' ;· tr-. GGr<.rQJrv c) r-'1 v-f '{)&, !//,~~ Yes® 

' 

~ S vk.e_ r-~ Lev~ .D0-v N 'w 1 r.il'Jt::le.s, 

- frl- (2,~ \- R~ _______________________________________________ Arlington 6:30P.M. , ________ , _______ ,______________________________________ P age · 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

~ [_ I'JV'I · B 1 ; r II\ ;, (IV', St:_,/A ~ SNo 

-.:::J I • \... '-" 

-- 4 () )l I ~~ 1\a\~~r ~ Yes~ ----- . .. tJl,h:: __ • 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Arlinrn-on 6:30P.M. p ---------~~-e.::. _________ ~-------------------------------------------------------------- age 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15, 2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-ns-Al, 2013-049-117-Al, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) /\ (Circle One) 

) ~)c:VV\Jrcc D c21~if5 ra ~ );;/! 6PNo 

/-;t,JG;~ ·---- r;::;J _j_IZJ ----i) '-5_l/l / ~~ 

\ <p ~ VlZ 0--\ LQ_<;J~ ~l\..Q~ to~~ ~~~c_oJ 

@No Soq.c.:..~ 

- T - 1 c r-rt(/(~Vk&vt?L. \~ 0 v if\ ~s V"JW.:~-4'te\J 6asweU QLOarene~5 G)~ 

\ J 

) 

\~-{ 

. / ' 

~ Fe c f ~Wl(/~ '\1 ~ '€_ -tJl~l ~ ~&r2f ~/if'~ ( ~ c~No ' (7 

-- /fkrC; J((;fz//5' AJc.:(c09_ Yes~. 

\ 1~~ S&\1\ M 0c0'\--V\r/V\\\2 GG cJ~/ h)ft \rJor~:., Si~<:.;hrc; CL~ ·~J~o ~ 

<" (3~_a Y\ )') ()'() ~}c ue t\ \ /JY'- \~c-r co~ Yes~ ~ 
--

-

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Ca_vry(~ 

Name 

(Please Print) 

\ fcuq-e_ 

(~-r/ YoL{A J 

v 

s ~tJ/(c---

~·VA 

~~ f!J 

Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Circle One) 

L \u0 (9No 

~(o YesG 

/2 e j t

1 

v "' (, Yes@ 

_f...-'" f:,H a At;....~,~ r T;.:- ;':) ~ 

.fi-e-If- YG 

\ Yes €} 5 e-1-r-
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15, 2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-Al 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name 

(Please Print) Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Circle One) 

\~~--·:)_· __ ,_~ ___ [) __/_U_~~~~A~V~l~/ ______________ ~---------'-' ______________________ _, ____ ~---------· ----~ 

.5ELF 

Yes 6 

tr Yes @ 

v 

Yes fV 

l ) u 

Yes No 

--·········--·--··-········---·-·-·····---.--.-.-....... __ ·····-··-----·-------·-----·····--·--"··-·-.-----·--.--.-.-----. 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15, 2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

).;J?d~ f-k 1/1 r~-M-1 ln c;sLf- Yes ~ 

R ~~~ v Zt C'tV~- \.<.. Ye(;) 

c; "'e~ ~\A ~ €J .Y\ ; r' e.) !Y7Vi'5 el~ Yes €0 

E r t'7Ae-e_¥~ ~ .( 4 YesQ (-e_y c~£-ev 

k .,S~ ;<( / ;::., 4A C:~/l? /~s;::-c:__p Yes~ 

:J /V;)L~ ~ " 

(:'/.~ ·;q Jj<;: f' p Yes@ I::;;. --· I.Pr-

' ·; v 

Yes No 

Yes No 

. !\!~!ing!_~!! 6: 3_Q_~.M. _____ -----······-·-...... -·-·----······-·····--------- Page 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Axlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

.. ~· 

\::-~ &/YZ ;)"rn A:~ ·~ ~r0~ ~cf Yes···~ 

--- \ -~~ ' 

v~~l\- Yes Qi_0 -· c~=<_n ~~· ~ o r--e'-' ~(A_ <-l:ci r -~ u 

~,,~. Yes @' / '-'V Lc~~t!f ,.<) .-;~_.e.€., 

\ (~ Q u 

~EN SI-\NV:S e L c_ ))~ 'AJN 0J!rJ}) ~.~ ~0 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? (Please Print) (Circle One) 

..-v&ciA 

J 

!Jc 1'/J J!? ;Z'?-f- ~ 

/)uAW/J;/& ol I I A's!: ~ 

-{] 6 J <~ < D cvJfc.-aJ(t{ be,/(!! B-It Yes~ --1)-t6 .vA I ~J j 

E J~CLrJ (~ ur+ ~u. ()f\ [)a '-'-' n ...._.: l'v dv- s- c /'.' <;, ( e_ Yes@ 

-- ~~~ \_\i-('__ \!C'\ ) S~c \~( Yes @ 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Arlington 6:30 P.M. p ----........... ····--·--------···--··----------------------·-----------··~-------------~---------------------- - --- age 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15, 2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

-c;(OlA 

Name 

(Please Print) Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Circle One) 

Yes(~~ 

Yes i!!j{) 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx I and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

l-ka>-f/1er ~Da~ui s fJ C~Trc"'r"J Yes @ 

'-( 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

'fh21 ( B - e u CJ;uJ~~ rJ )~ea H-k -':l~s~tf ~ No 

f---.".,/. . -ZJ~' ~- QS uJ _/_~ (.'-' 

Yes No 

Yes No 

--

Yes No 

1---

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 15,2015 

Time: 6:30P.M. 

Rule Projects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-Al, and 2014-007-101-AI 

SIP Projects: 2013-015-SIP-NR and 2013-014-SIP-NR 

Short Title: DFW NOx and VOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking and Trading Update; DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD and RFP SIP Revisions 

Location: Arlington City Council Chambers 

Concerning: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 and the proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration 

and Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revisions for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

/\JE:J[_ S-nSA~>tf1At0J TA r'(_P-Fivu T c_v v!0J7 "I 

Yes rt;) -SL-\..'-D G-E r .$. c'7 FF u:: __ E 

Yes No 

Yes No 

1---· 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Arlington 6:30P.M. --·····-···--·-···· --·······----~---············---··--·····----·-····-··--····-----···-····--------··-------·-····------------···------ Page 
~----·-· -----~-------·- ------- ~-----~--·--··· ... ·~---··~·-~~-- -·---·- -

- 1 -

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Date: January 22, 2015 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Rule Project No.: 2013-015-SIP-NR, 2013-014-SIP-NR, 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-Al 

Short Title: DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard RFP SIP Revision, VOC RACT Rules for the 

DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea, NOx RACT Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea 

Location: 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, Texas 78753 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

8l\t--~ w~L5 I~ g~ ~ !Awl\.'\ Yes ~ 

\ '-' \ \) 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

-••••••-• -~· ~~-----•-· o _,,..; o -·•··-·-·-- • ·--·- -••••- o •• • •••••••••••-•••-••--••••••-•••-•••-••••• •••••oo •-•-••• ••~-• ...:....._~,--·--••'•'- ••- ··-- •••••••• ••••••• *••••--~••• .o.o ••• ••OoO'O"OM_,_ 
HEARING OFFICER REPORT 

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding: 

e VOC RACT Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 2013-048-

115-AI 

«~ NOx RACT Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 2013-049-

117-AI 

e DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard RFP SIP Revision, 2013-014-SIP-NR 

e DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, 2013-015-SIP-NR 

A public hearing was scheduled in Austin TX on January 22, at 10:00 a.m. in 

Building E, Room 2018, at 12100 Park 35 Circle. TCEQ staff and a court reporter 

were present for the public hearing. 

At 10:00 a.m. the room was opened andTCEQ staff was available to the public for 

an informal question and answer period. 15 minutes after start of the public 

hearing it was determined that those that were present did not want to make 

comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was not formally opened 

for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 

Date signed