BryanW. Shaw,Ph.D., P.E., 

### Chairman TobyBaker, 

### Commissioner RichardA. Hyde, P.E.,

### ExecutiveDirector 

## 15 JUL 13 PH 5: 24 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting TexasbyReducingandPreventingPollution 

### July 10,2015



### RonCurry RegionalAdministrator U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency-:- Region 6 1445 RossAvenue Dallas,Texas 75202-2733 DearMr. Curry: 

## DocketNos. 2014-1262-SIP 2014-0501-RUL 2014-0707-RUL ProjectNos. 2013-015-SIP-NR 2013-048-115-AI 2013-049-117-AI

OnJune3, 2015, theTexas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality (Commission)adopted revisionstothe St.ate ImplementationPlan(SIP)for thecontrolofozoneairpollutionforthe Dallas-FortWorth (DFW) 2008 Eight-HourOzoneNonattainmentArea. TheCommissionadopted therepealof§115-417; new§115.410 and§115-411; and amendmentsto §§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 30TexasAdministrative Code (TAC) Chapter115, ControlofAirPollutionfromVolatile OrganicCompounds; theamendmentsto §§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;therepealof§§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; andnew§117-405and§117.452in30TAC Chapter 117, ControlofAir PollutionfromNitrogen Oxides; andcorrespondingrevisionstotheSIP.The amendmentsto 30TAC §§117.210(c), 117.225, 117.410(d), 117-425, 117.1110(b), 117.1125, 117.1310(b), and 117.1325, correspondtoportionsoftheexistingrulepreviouslyexcluded fromtheEPA-approvedTexasSIP, arenotbeingsubmittedtoEPA asrevisionstotheSIP. Similarly,adoptednew §117-405(d) 

## will notbesubmittedtotheEPAas a SIPrevision. TheCommissionalsoadoptedtheDFW2008Eight-HourOzoneStandardAttainment Demonstration(AD) SIP Revision. TheDFW2008Eight-HourOzoneStandardAD SIP P.O. Box 13087 • Austin,Texas 78711-3087 • 512·239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov Howis ourcustomerservice? tceq.texas.govjcustomersurvey pnnted on recycled paper us1ng vegetable-based mk

## revision incorporatestheChapter 115 and 117rulemakingstofulfill reasonably available controltechnology (RACT) requirementsfor all controltechniquesguidelines (CTG) emission source categories andall non-CTG majorsourcesofVOC andNOx as requiredbyFCAA, §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2). The statehas previouslyadoptedChapter 115VOC andChapter 117 NOxrulesto satisfyRACT requirementsfor sourcesinthenine-countyDFWareaas partof the SIPforthe 1997eight-hourozone stan9,ard. Therulemakings satisfyRACT requirements for Wise Countyandfor anysourcesidentifiedintheDFW areathatarenotalreadysubjectto theexistingrules. ThisSIPrevisionincludestheworkcompletedtodatetodemonstratethatthe DFWareawill attainthe2008eight-hourozone NAAQS by2018.The SIPrevisionalso commitsto developmentofa 2017AD SIPrevisionfortheDFW 2008eight-hourozonenonattainment areafor future submittaltotheEPA. The2017AD SIPrevisionwouldinclude a photochemicalmodelinganalysis, aweight ofevidenceanalysis, a reasonablyavailable control measures (RACM) analysis, and a MotorVehicleEmissions Budget (MVEB). Becausenoadditional analysiswas neededto completethecontingencyplanfor attainment, Section4.9, 

## ContingencyPlan, was revisedtoreflecta 2017 attainmentyear. Enclosed aretheproposedrevisionstotheSIP, apublichearingcertification, a complete recordofthepublichearings, andtheaccompanyingorder. I lookforwardtoyour expeditiousapproval oftheseSIP revisions. Sincerely,

# ~.._.U~ct.v...r**~.Shaw,** Ph.D., P.E. Chairman BWS/alb Enclosures cc: The Honorable GregAbbott, Governor ofTexas Mr. JohnZerwas, Office ofBudget, PlanningandPolicy, Office oftheGovernor Mr. RichardA. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director,Texas CommissiononEnvironmental QualityTexas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearings January 15 and 22, 2015 Concerning Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds NOx Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea 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 eighthourozone moderate nonattainment area as required by Federal Clean AirAct, §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 117for temporary boilers and process heaters, and it clarifies the definition ofelectric 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 butwas extended to February 11, 2015. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record ofthe public hearings and is divided into the following four sections:

o 

### Public Notification and Proposal o Written and Oral Testimony o Evaluation ofTestimony o Staff Recommendations/Order

### Additional copies ofthis hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Forfurther information, please contact Javier Galvan at (512) 239-1492.

# TESTIMONY

### ReferenceNumber W-1

W-2 

### W-3 W-4 

### W-5 W-6 

### INDEX OF WRJTTENTESTIMONY

Submittedby RobertE. Hurt and SteveWillis, P.E., Dal-Tile Corporation KimberlyMireles, Luminant Dick Schoech LeslieWitherspoon, SolarTurbines Incorporated Thure Cannon, Texas PipelineAssociation GuyDonaldson, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency

### Dai-Tile Corporation 

# W-1 Public Comments Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI

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

"The commission is also requesting comments duringthis rulemaking proposal on the NOX monitoring requirements in existing §117.440(c) for ceramic kilns. It has come tothe attention ofthe 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 ofa 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, tothe existing provisions ofthe NOX monitoring requirements of existing §117.440(c) for ceramic kilns." 

### Dai-Tile owns and operates ceramic tile kilns at ourfacility in Sunnyvale, TX. We affirm that there are numerous issues associated with NOx monitoring using a CEMS or PEMS. Dai-Tile requests that 11

### Ceramic kilns" be removed from the named sources in §117.440 (c}(1}(F). Their inclusion requires the use ofa 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 ofthe use ofCEMS or PEMS. The following specific comments are provided in support ofthe 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 facilityto install, operate, maintain and calibrate CEMS to monitor NOx exhaust from each ofthe ceramic tile kilns. This facility has had CEMS units installed on the kilns for 5years. Due to naturally occurringtrace elements in the raw materials used to produce ceramic tile, the nature ofthe exhaust from the ceramic kilns results in the aggressive corrosion ofthe CEMS units. This has resulted in very high degree of maintenance and repairs, coupled with significant downtime ofthe CEMS units. It also has resulted in high calibrations costs, with each unit needing calibration at an average frequency of 3times per week. Because of its highly corrosive nature, the exhaust gas monitored by the CEMS greatly affects the accuracy and reliability ofthe units and the data from them cannot be considered high quality due to the amount ofdowntime and frequency ofcalibration adjustments.Dai-Tile Public Comments- Rule Project Number 2013-049-117-AI February 10, 2015 - Page 2 of3



### 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 ofemissions. The NOx emissions are estimated based on exhaust flow and the use ofageneric 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 ofcompliance. b. Does not provide enhanced protection ofthe environment. i. In 5 years, the current CEMS units have not indicated any exceedance. ii. The ceramic tile kilns are designed to use afixed and constant combustion air flow system. Once the kilns are heated to operatingtemperature, during normal operations the burners are neverturned off until the kilns are completely shut down. The onlytimethe kilns are completely shut down is ifthere will be no production for more than one week. This could be as a result ofscheduled major maintenance or product inventory adjustment. When in operation (typically over 350 of365 days/year), the tile feed rate is set at 100% ofthe kiln capacity to maximize production and energy efficiency. As a result, the NOx emissions have very little variability. Periodic testing provides as good or bettercontinuous demonstration ofcompliance iii. Previous testing ofemissions from the ceramic tile kilns at Dai-Tile have demonstrated that they alreadyfully 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 othertile 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 ofany NOx emissions. ii. During the 5years ofoperation, the required contracted annual CEMS support costs were $65,000 peryear, plus an additional estimated annual cost of$80,000 for calibration, maintenance, and repair. Due tothe 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 Number2013-049-117-AI February 10, 2015- Page 3 of3 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 thatthese kilns meet the qualificationsfor the use of low-Mass Emission methodology in lieu of CEMS that is allowed bythe US EPA as stipulated in 40 CFR 75.19. In these regulations, EPA recognizes that it is appropriatefor smaller unitsto use periodictesting in lieu of CEMs/PEMs. 5. In other sections ofthe 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 ofthe 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 thatthe inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary inclusion ofceramic tile kilns in §117.440 (c}(1}(F) be removed

Dai-Tile also requests modification of §117.8000 (c)(6). As worded, calorific value ofthe fuel must be determined using one oftwo specified ASTM methods. "(6) American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM) Method 01945-91 orASTM Method 03588-93 for fuel composition; ASTM Method 01826-88 orASTM Method 03588-91 for calorific value; oralternate methods as approved by the executive directorand 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 methodsthat may be used by the supplier. It is requested thatthe language ofthis 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 EHurt, 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 ofLegal 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 ofLuminant on the Proposed NOx RACT Rules forthe DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea Rule Project Number2013-049-117-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 inChapter 117 ofthe 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 opportunityto 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 ofthe rules; however, we agree thatthis clarification is one interpretation that could be made. Though we disagree on the best interpretation, Luminant is in favor ofthe proposed changes because itwill provide regulatory certainty. Specifying the requirements through a rulemaking process will minimize uncertainty regarding the appropriate calculation methodologyand reduce the likelihood ofchanges inthe future without a rulemaking proces_s. Thank you forthe opportunityto comment on the proposed rule and do not hesitate to contact me at 214-875-8382 ifyou 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 aconfirmation ofthe comment thatwas submitted forthe referenced rulemaking. 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

IattendedtheJanuaryTCEQ hearing on revisions tothe TCEQ plan forclean DFW air and itwas DEPRESSING. Many people attended and gave expert and detailed testimonyon the problemswith the plan and how itwould have little impacton cleaning the air in the DFW area, which has the 8th dirtiestairof US cities. So I need notgo into details. You have all the detailsyou need on file from that hearing. Not oneTCEQboard memberwas present, only paid staff. I can see why no board members showed up, since Alltestimony was thattheplan revisions were totally inadequate as they have been overthe lastyears. 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 ofall their medications and lung equipment. Everyone was pleading for relieffrom the bad airand sayingtheTCEQ plan was totally inadequate. Itseems we are doomed tosuffer ifourair is lefttoTCEQ. Icame awaythinkingthatTCEQ needed a big lawsuitto get its attention since folks making money from dirtyairseem to have bought everyone with powerto do somethingto clean up ourair. Testimony pointed outthat solutions are known and are relatively easy and inexpensive. I came awayfrom the hearing feeling that Iwas in Beijing China wherethe air is dirtyand officials are corrupt. Ijust wish someTCEQ board members and politicianswould have cometoface the people being poisoned by our bad air. Our air and this plan's revisions are depressing.

1

# Solar rbines Solar Turbines Incorporated ACaterpillarCompany 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 ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds NOX RACT Rules forthe DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea 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-FortWorth (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 referto 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 similarto the suggested 50 MMBtu/hr (HHV) level found in subpart KKKK. Another suggestion is forTCEQ 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 orwater/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 ofthe potential RACT impacted units were installed was subpart GG. The emission values proposed in the RACT are stricterthan 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 SolarTurbines in Wise County will be impacted by the proposed RACT. For two ofturbines Solar has a technical solution [SoloNOx (Dry Low NOx) retrofit] to meet the proposed RACT level. The cost ofthe retrofit is significant and would probably not meet the definition of "reasonable". See next section ofthis letter. Forthe othertwo impacted units, at theirturbine rating, there is no technical solution. In orderto 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 orderforthe 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 SolarTurbines units. On the four SolarTurbines 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 forthe five year period, $881 Kfortotal 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 ofthe proposed RACT on each affected unit in Wise County. Such an SolarTurbines 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 similarto 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 necessaryto 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 ofthis RACT in accordance with the following compliance schedules: 1. Operators with no more than two units shall demonstrate and maintain compliance by the earlier ofthe following dates:

a. (insert date 4 years afterthe effective date of rule) b. Within 90 days following the next major overhaul on or after

____(insert date18 months afterthe 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 afterthe effective date of rule), and b. By (insert date 30 months afterthe effective date of rule) at least 25% ofthe total number of units subject, and c. By (insert date 42 months after the effective date of rule), at least 60% ofthe total number of units subject, and d. By (insert date 54 months afterthe 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

SolarTurbines Incorporated TCEQDFW RACT Comment Letter Page 3 of3

### 7T Texas PipelineAssociation Thure Cannon President 

### February 11, 2015 Submittedvia http:llwwwl.tceq.texas.govlrules/ecomments/ 

### DerekBaxter Office ofLegal Services MC205 Texas CommissiononEnvironmental 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 NonattainmentArea DearMr. 

### Baxter: The Texas Pipeline Association ("TPA") submits the following comments on TCEQ'sproposed 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. TPA is an organization composed of50 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 affectedby these rules or in the future may construct new sources that will be subjectto these newRACT provisions. 

### I. Introduction. In this rulemaking, TCEQ proposes to extend implementation ofNOx RACT requirements to certain major sources ofNOx 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. TPA is concerned, however, about the economic infeasibility of controlling certain types of

1

### See 30TAC § 

### 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. Inaddition, inthe caseofgas-firedturbines, RACT may notbetechnically feasible. 2 

### ll. Contraryto TCEQ's cost estimates,the cost to control some gas-fired RB enginesinWise Countyis noteconomicallyfeasible. 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 ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol 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, andtherefore thosecontrols would not constituteRACT 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 bethe primary control technology for gas-fired RB engines to meetthis specification.5 

### In some cases,TCEQ states, "the additionofa secondarycatalyst module maybe requiredtomeet 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 effectivenessofNSCRwithmeetingthis controllevel."7 

### We respectfully disagree with TCEQ's analysis. One TPA member has analyzed its fleet ofgas-fired RB engines in Wise County and has determined that six ofthose engines, already controlled by catalyst, cannot meet the specified emission rate of0.50 glhp-hr even with additional catalyst added. The type 

### ofengine at issue is a 1680 hp Waukesha L7044 GSI engine. Without a GE Waukesha emPact Emission Control System conversionkit atthe cost of$90,000perengine (i.e, 

### $540,000 intotal for this one TPA member), this engine type 

### cannot beguaranteed to meetthe specified emission rate of0.50g/hp-hr.

2

### TPAwould notethatbothitandthe State ofTexashave suedEPAoverthe designation ofWise Countyasnonattainmentfor the2008eight-hourozone standard. 

### SeeMississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. EPA, No. 12-1309 

### in the United States Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit. TPA supportsTCEQ's proposal to repeal theNOxRACT provisions applicable to Wise Countyifthe nonattainmentdesignation ofWiseCountyisoverturnedbythe court. 3

### See 30Tex. Reg. 10337 (Dec. 26, 2014), 

### citing44 Fed. Reg, 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). 4 

### See 117.405(b)(2)(A) (proposed). 5 

### 39Tex. Reg. 10341. 6 

### 39Tex. Reg. 10341. 7 

### 39Tex. Reg. 10341. 

### 2

### The cost per ton ofNOx reduced for controlling this type ofengine 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 ofNOxreduced for affected units. 9 

### Thus the real-world cost that would be incurred to implementthe proposed controls is far above the cost that TCEQ anticipated, and is not economically reasonable orfeasible. TPA urges TCEQ to re-evaluate RACT for this type 

### of RB engine. In the proposedrules, TCEQ has established specific emission rates for leanbum 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 forthis type ofengine bythe addition ofNSCRcatalyst. We would be happy todiscussthis costanalysis with TCEQ staffbeforethe 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 ofthe 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 ofgas-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 ofthese two estimates of$2 million, the cost perton for emissions reductions would be $38,800, an amount that far exceeds TCEQ's anticipated costs ofcompliance and that is not economically feasible, as RACT requires, and far exceeds TCEQ's best available control technology ("BACT") cost/tonreasonableness standard. Forotherturbines, it is simplynottechnicallyfeasible to perform aretrofit 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

sThe attached spreadsheet (Exhibit 1) demonstrates that the cost per ton ofNOx reduced for these engineswouldbeover $11,000. 9 

### 39Tex. Reg. 10350. 10

### See 30TAC § 117.405(b)(2)(B) (proposed). 11 

### 39Tex. 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 associatedwithturbine, package, and control system modification; and itwould approach a complete source replacement, which is contrary to the definition ofRACT. As 

### TCEQ states inthe preamble, "[a] control level cannotrepresent RACT for a 'particular source' ifit is more cost-effective to replace that source with an entirely new source in order to meettheemissionlimitation."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 economicfeasibility requirement and mightnotmeetthetechnological feasibility testthat 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 standardis 150 ppm,13 

### while TCEQ is proposinglimitsof122 ppmfor 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 costofcompliance will be

### so high, as noted above. Finally, TCEQ'sproposedtimeline for compliance would notbe 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 proposedrules, which would incorporate a phased-in schedule thatwould provide a more reasonable timeframe within which the needed technology upgrades could be accomplished. We endorse Solar's comments and incorporate them as iffully set forth herein. 

### IV. TPA supports aspects ofthe proposed rules that would provide for complianceflexibility. 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 ofproposed new 

### §117.405(b). Use ofthe source cap approach and the use ofcredits are well established mechanisms that provide sources with increased flexibility in meeting emission

12 

### 39Tex. Reg. 10342. 13 

### See 40 CFR 

### §§ 60.4300 and .4320; Table 1 to Subpart KKKK ofPart 60-Nitrogen 

### Oxide EmissionLimitsfor New Stationary CombustionTurbines. 14

### See conversiontable (attached asExhibit2). 

### 4

### specifications. We agree with TCEQ that those mechanisms should apply to sources affectedby thenewNOx RACT rules, and we supportTCEQ'sproposaL We also support proposed new Section 117.405(e)(3), which would allow owners oroperators to petitiontheExecutive Directorunder Section 117.425 for an alternativeto the carbonmonoxide and ammoniaemission specifications containedin 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 ofthe individual unit at issue, as provided in Section 117.425, is the best way to ensure that emission limits are complied with while accountingforexceptionalcircumstances thatmay arise in aparticularcase. 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 of0.50 or 0.70 glhp-hr 

### would not constitute RACT for Wise County engines because meeting this level of control could necessitate the installation ofemission 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 ofmany 

### LB engines that currently are in operation in Wise County. This would be contrary to RACT's requirement of economic feasibility and its requirementthat a control level cannotbe RACT for a given source ifit is more cost-effective to replace that source with a new source in order to meettheemission limitationat issue. In addition, the 0.50 and0.70 g/hp-hrcontrol levels did notrepresent RACT when theywere adopted, butinsteadwentbeyond RACTto 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, whichis included only inthe moderate nonattainment area forthe 2008 eight-hourozone NAAQS. Finally, we note that, for the most part, TCEQ is not proposing to revise the RACT provisions applicable to oil and gas sources ofNOx in the DFW 9-county area. TPA supports this decision. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, some ofthose 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 ofthe continued progress toward reducing ozone precursor emissions in the DFW area in its

15 

### See 39Tex. 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 submitthese comments. Please letus knowif we could be ofany assistance orifyou have any questions or concerns aboutthe matters discussed above. Yourstruly,

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 StandardNonattainmentArea, ProjectNo. 2013-015-SIP-NR (Dec. 10, 2014). 

### 6Engine 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 2g/hp-hrto0.5 g/hp-hr NOx Reduction $/ton NOx 24.3 tpy $3,698.55 Reduction from 1g/hp-hrto0.5 g/hp.hr NOx Reduction $/ton NOx 8.1 tpy $11,095.65 

### Exhibit 1

### Exhibit2Page 1 of2

RuleComjlarl5011 Proposec 117.405(b)(3){AHC) NSPSKICKK Equivalent Combustion ppmv01S% 

### NOzemission Combustion turbineheatInput hpRat.intl lb/MMBtu 02 standard turbinetype atpeak load (HHV) lessthan4500 0.45 122ppm 150ppm llllodlt'iedor <=501\111\/iBtu/b reconstruttedturbine

### Exhibit

## 2Page

## 2of

## 2

ExampletaiQiiatiCII'l$ SolarCentaur40Turbine Centaur40Specifications (SolarTurbines)**~** kp 4,450 hp AffectedTurbineExample BSFC (SolarC-40) x X 9,125 btu/hp-hr l/lxl0"6 MMBtu/Btu HeatRate Btu/hp-hr

flrllllRate • AIIQwable Emissions FiringRate Umlt x Allowable Rate 40.61 MMbtll/hr

40.61 MMbtll/hr 0.45 lb NOK/MMBtu 18.27 lb NOx/hr Conversion toPPMVByEPAMethodU Stacl! Flow FiringRate 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 StatkFlow I 1,252,868 dsef/hr Conversion M19 •x-.....**0•[)1•[)•00•0•01~1~94~--~** U2 ppmv 815"02

Method 19 Eumo!tCa!cylatlo"'i ExhaustFlow lb/hr Extaaust tf TMIJ)etlture Axial Exhaust SoLoNOx

SlackFlow(dscfhtr) • Firing Rate**(mm~** • 6710dscflmmbtu •(20.9/[20.9•02DryJJ=cltcf/hr NOx{lblhr) • ppm NOx • StackFlow(dscflhr) • .0000001194,. lblhr CO**~blhr)** .,ppm CO• StackFlow (dscfhtr) • .00000007267•lblhr wtlefe: 8,710 cltcf/mmbiU "' Fdfactor used in EPA40 CFR60,AppendiXA. Method 19. 0.0000001194 "'factortoCOilV8I1 ppm NOxtolbl!lcfNOx. 0.00000007267 • factortoconvertppm COtolblacfCO. 4,700

9,125 150,320 835 Yes Yes

### UNITED



### Ms. Kathy Singleton ENVIRONMENTAlPROTECTiONAGENCY REG!ON6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1:200 DALLASTX75202·2733 

# FEB 11 2015

MC 206, State ImplementationPlan Team AirQualityDivision Texas CommissiononEnvironmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# W-6

Re: Dallas-FortWorthAttainmentDemonstrationfor the 2008 Eight-Hour OzoneNonattainmentArea, ProjectNumber2013-015-SIP-NR; Dallas-FortWorthReasonableFurtherProgress State ImplementationPlanRevision for the 2008 Eight-HourOzone Standard, ProjectNumber2013-014- SIP-NR;Revisionsto Chapter 115, ProjectNumber2013-048-115-AI; andRevisionsto Chapter 117, ProjectNumber2013-049-117-AI DearMs. Singleton: Thank youfor the opportunitytoreviewthefourproposed revisions that address the Dallas/FortWorth (DFW) nonattainment areaunderthe 2008 ozone standard. Wehave enclosedcomments onthe proposed attainmentdemonstration andRFP SIPs, and ontheproposed revisionsto Chapters 115 and 117. We appreciate theworkbythe TCEQ in developing these documents. Nonetheless, additional ozone reductions will benecessarytodemonstrate attainment Theproposed attainment demonstration (ProjectNumber2013-015-SIP-NR) is based onan attainment date ofDecember31, 2018. OnDecember 23,2014,the U.S. CourtofAppeals fortheD.C. Circuitheld thatthe endofyearattainmentdates were notconsistentwith Congressional intent

### NRDCv. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS24253 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Therefore,the EPAintendstopromulgate arulemakingto revise the attainmentdatesto atimeframe consistentwith the court's decision, As aresult, we anticipate thatthe attainment date

## will beearlierthanthe end

### ofthe 2018 ozone season, which meansthatthe attainmentyearozone season forthe DFWnonattainment area\Villlikelybe 2017ratherthan 2018. We understandthe lossofa yearto demonstrate attainmentpresentschallenges for the State. For example, the State will lose a year ofexpected ozone reductionsfrom fleetturnover. Thesepotential reductions will needto be "found" in othermeans to showattainment bythe2017 ozone season. While this willtakefurther analysis and consideration by Texas, we are committed to working with youto identify solutions.**lntern<l~**Address{URl) 111 http://\>NIW.epa.gov/regionc Recyo!ed!Becycl&llle til Pridedwith Vegetable Oll8asnd lnk.son 100% Post<:onsumBr, Process Chlorine Free Rooycled PapBr

### We lookforward todiscussingthe enclosed commentswith you. Pleasefeel free to contactme orMs. Carrie Paige ofmy staffat 214-665-6521, ifyouhave questions.

Enclosure Sincerelyyours, 

# ftJ7 J.j**c~-J,** 

# __

M_,/ 

### Guy Donaldson1 

### Chief Air

### Planning SectionProject Number2013-015-SIP-NR Comments addressingthe Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration (AD) The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainmentarea's attainment date. In light ofthe recent decision made by the U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe D.C. Circuit, 1 we anticipatethatthe attainment date forthe DFW area will be earlierthan the end ofthe 2018 ozone season and thus, the attainment year ozone season forthe DFW area will likely be 2017. Please revise the applicable elements ofthe attainment demonstration submittalto 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 MotorVehicle 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 theJune 6, 2013 proposal forthe ozone implementation rule, we proposed establishment of MVEBs consistentwith the use ofonroad fleet turnover as a contingency measure (see 78 FR 34178, 34199). Having such budgets would help to ensure that reductions from afleet turnover contingency measure would be surplus and available for the SIP in the eventthatthe contingency measures are triggered. TCEQ should include a MVEB forthe fleet turnovercontingency measure. TCEQ has worked to refine its modeling platform using 2006 base case periods and evaluation of2018 future year ozone levels. In accomplishing this work, TCEQ has performed a numberofanalyses to evaluate the model performance ofthe 2006 base case periods following EPA's modeling guidance. We appreciate TCEQ providing the supplemental modeling with updated emission inventoryand model projections based on both EPA's existing 2007 modeling guidance and the new DRAFT modeling guidance methodsthat are currently outfor public review and comment until March 13, 2015. We note usingthe new DRAFT modeling guidance methods, TCEQ projects all but one monitorto 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 of76). Using EPA's 2007 modeling guidance methods thevalues 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 ofevidence (WOE) TCEQ has done a numberof modeling analyses and also evaluated emissions and monitoringtrends. Overall we thinkthe modeling ls performing reasonably well, butthere are some concerns with model performance oftransported ozone and ozone precursors as discussed below and byTCEQ in Appendix Cofthe proposal. Overall the WOE components raise some concern aboutwhetherthe DFW area will be able to obtain the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of75 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 clearthat the area will attain the standard by 2017 without additional reductions. See belowfor more detailed comments on the modeling and WOE.

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

### 1Comments addressing the RACM analysis Please provide the estimated amount of NOx emission reductions (in tpd) thatwould reduce ozone values atthe monitors by 1 ppb. In the Tables in Appendix D, please include the estimated emissions reductions associated with each ofthe measures. This additional information will help determinewhich measures, separately or in combination, would assist in advancingthe attainment date for measures that can be implemented priortothe beginning ofthe attainment year ozone season. Within the RACM analysis, the TCEQ estimates that reducing the source cap forthe kilns in Ellis County would not provide significant NOx emission reductions forthe DFW area. However, a reduction in the source cap of4.6 tpd, as estimated by theTCEQ, does appear significant, compared with the emissions reductions estimated for othersources of NOx in the DFW area. What modeling or otheranalyses were performed that supportthe TCEQ's conclusion regarding the source cap? The TCEQ provided an evaluation ofemissions from all ofthe utility electric generators in east and central Texas. However, the discussion in Appendix Don theformation, background levels, and transport ofozone stronglysupports the implementation ofcontrols on NOx sources located tothe east and southeast ofthe DFW nonattainment area. How would a reduction in NOx emissions from utility electric generators in justthe counties closest tothe eastern and southern boundaries ofthe DFW area impactthe DFW area? Comments addressing the proposed VOC RACT analysis EPA supports the inclusion of majorsources ofVOC located in Wise Countyto become subject tothe requirements of30 TAC Chapter 115. EPA appreciates theVOC RACT analysis provided by TCEQ. Comments addressing the proposed NOx RACT analysis There has been asignificant 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 forthese efforts. Because ofsignificant changes in thetype and number ofcement 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 ofcontrol as required by the Clean Air Act. In particular, the retirement ofthe higher emittingwet kilns and operation of more energy efficient and loweremitting dry kilns in Ellis County makes it necessary fortheTCEQ to revisit its NOx cap limit, set forth in 2007 at 17.4tons per day (tpd). This limit was set, in part, based on higher emission rates for wet kilns. Therefore, with fewer sources contributing tothe cap, the dry kilns essentially have a less stringent emission rate requirement. We can no longer conclude the emission limitthat is in place reflects a RACT level ofcontrol. An evaluation ofthe RACTforcement kilns in Ellis County is needed that reflects the level ofcontrol that can reasonably be achieved and new limitsto reflect the reasonable level ofcontrol. TCEQ can either establish appropriate rate based limits {lbs/ton ofclinker) foreach unit or it can establish acap 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 limitwill preserve any necessary operational flexibility as it sets no limit on production rates. Failure to conduct athorough RACT analysis for cement kilns which would include appropriate emission limits would prevent us from approvingthe RACT portion ofthe attainment plan submittal.



### 2Comments addressingthe proposed AD SIP, Appendix H: local Initiatives Submitted bythe North Central Texas Council ofGovernments We appreciate the work done by the North Central Texas Council ofGovernments (NCTCOG) in developing the list of local initiatives. The submittal letterfrom the NCTCOG indicates thatthe initiatives are "expected to be implemented by 2018." In light ofthe recent Court decision 2 and consequential need for EPA to establish an earlier attainment date, please list the local initiatives thatwill 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 ofthe year (2015). The guidance may change further based on comments. In this transitional period, we recommend thatTCEQ continue to provide the attainmenttest 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 earlyJanuary by TCEQ indicate one monitorat 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 notethatthese numbers will most likely go up some with an attainment demonstration based on 2017. We request thatTCEQ supplement their analysis as needed to showthatthe 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 monitorshould be identified. In limitingthe days to 10 days, an evaluation ofthe performance on each day and thetype of meteorology/transport phenomena of each day should be provided. The main principal ofthe attainmenttest is to limitthe days tothe higher days at the monitor, butthere needs to be an evaluation ofthe days used to make sure thatthe set of days used represents the conceptual model forthe area and is representative ofall the days thatyield ozone exceedances. In doingthis evaluation it may be that more than 10 days are necessary forsome monitors. For example: the later summer episode is importanttothe 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 thatthe modeling is conservative. TCEQ has provided information on recent ozone trends to support its conclusion the area will attain by 2018. Most ofthe recent years, however, have been average or below normal in overall conduciveness for ozone formation. Temperature has been high forsome ofthese years which does lead to higherozone, but wind speeds have also been higherthan normal which leads to lowerozone concentration with more dispersion. 2011 was one ofthese type ofyears. 2014 had very favorable meteorology and was one of the lowest ozone monitoring years in the Eastern halfofthe US with a2014 DFW area DV of81 ppb. It was abnormal, due to its lowerthan average temperature and frequency offrontal passages that led to reduced background build up, and not likely to be repeated. The 2013 DV data forthe DFW area was 87 ppb, indicating an 11 ppb drop would have to occurwithin fourto five years to reach attainment in 2017 or2018. Even considering the anomalous 2014, the area has to drop another 6 ppb.

2 NRDCv. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24253 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014). 3We notethat normal on-road/non-road fleet turnoverwithin areas ofDFW 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 longterm ozone level change. This equation indicates the 8-hourvalues 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 forthese future years based on this rate of reduction. See Figure 1 on page 7. Since the overwhelming majorityof reductions of NOx in the plan are the federal measures for on road and off road sources, it seems unreasonableto expectthis rate of reduction to accelerate. Based on the monitoring data and lack ofadditional large reductions in NOx within areas ofTexas that impact DFW, it is difficultto see howthe area would reach attainment in 2018 based solely on federal measures reductions from mobile and non-road. The fact thatthe attainment year will likely be 2017 makes the chance ofattainmentsmaller. Evaluation ofthe model performance data and source apportionment indicates thatthe 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 betterozone 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 foremission 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 monitoringthroughoutthe domain compared to modeled values. In particular, ittends to under-predict NOx concentrations in the western halfofthe 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 showthe large drops in local ozone levels and therefore raises afundamental question whetherthe photochemical modeling is working as an accurate toolfor assessing attainment in 2018 for DFW. We also notethat the modeling seems to project significant reductions due to out-of-state emission reductions, which reflects some ofthe expected trends in declining regional ozone levels. Episode Analysis Overall the June 2006 episode is agood episode and representative ofthe type ofdays from the conceptual model that drive the early summer exceedances in the DFW area. The inclusion ofAug-Sep 2006 is an improvement and attempts to include days that make up the lattersummer period in DFW that are historicallythe worst days overall and usually drive the DV forthe area. Lattersummer 2006 was not typical and was actually light on ozone exceedances compared tothe conceptual model, but was astep in the right direction. Because this period was below average it still hinders the analysis of latersummer 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 ofthe area are underrepresented in the analysis. Model Performance Analysis We appreciate TCEQ's efforts to analyze the Model Performance ofthe base case modeling. In Appendix C, we note thatforthe August/Septemberepisode, the average over-prediction ofobserved Maximum Daily Average 8-hourOzone (MDA8) ozone values is over 10 ppb (Figure 4-4 ofthe proposal,

4first set of bars), which is sufficientto cause concern. The TCEQ is investigating the causes ofthis bias and will take appropriate steps to ameliorate it, ifpossible, in the nearfuture. 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 proximityto the 1-35 corridorwhich is a large NO/N02 source, modeled values would likely be higherfor both the bilinear interpolation values and the 3x3 arrayvalues. Looking at the Ft. Worth NW monitor, it appears ozone on some high ozone days is being overestimated with aspread 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 lattersummer 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 higherthan observed at Hinton Street C401 and at Fort Worth Northwest C13 monitors. Modeling on a numberofdays seems to be overestimatingthe MDA8 and overall ozone levels at the upwind monitors in the DFW area and this overestimation ofbackground may be part ofthe reason for overestimation at downwind monitors. On some ofthese days this may indicate the local production is actually biased low on days that appearto 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 nighttimevalues. Modeled nighttime values range from 20-60 ppb higher, compared to monitorvalues. This is probably leading to the DFW upwind monitor performance issues especially on the morning hours and even on the MDA8 for manydays. This issue may lead tothe model being more responsive to regional background level changes than local changes. We recommend identifyingthe 10 days used for each monitoron the daily ozone MDA8 plots in Figure 4 ofthe proposal. This could potentially be accomplished by adding the specific monitors on each day thatwas the day was used forthe RRF analysis. As discussed above please document and show howthe days (10 or more) fit with the overall conceptual model forthe DFW area. We appreciate the Source apportionment modelingthat was included and find it informative. We note that itseems to indicate lower contributions from outside ofTexas, than the upwind monitoranalysis thatTexas included. This is not surprising as the upwind monitoranalysis approach can overestimate the amount ofbackground ozone that is contributing tothe exceedance since the monitor is not always completely upwind and does not necessarily pair in time with the contribution further downwind. On some ofthe 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 halfofthe ozone. WOE/Corroborative Analysis Recent NOx trends (Figure 5-10 in TCEQ's Proposal) indicate afairlyflat NOx trend forseveral NO monitors in the western area ofthe DFW area (Eagle Mtn. Lake, Denton, and Parker County monitors). These monitors are in areas more impacted by the growth in NOx sources forOil and Gas Development that seem to be counteringthe normal reduction in NOx levels seen at other monitors dueto fleet turnover reductions (on-road and Nonroad). These higher NOx levels in the modeling domain that seem 

### 5to be fairlyflat with no change since 2009 raise concern thatthe area is not seeing the NOx reductions needed to bringthe ozone levels down at these monitors. We notethat 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 Bofthe proposal. Any SIP revisions based on removing Wise County would have to have the modeling adjusted so that it does nottake 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 ofcatalysts to maintain estimated control levels. Has Texas done any follow-up to confirm that proper maintenance is occurringto ensure the controls are still meetingthe 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 morethan the current usage per production amount. This may result in the projected NOx emissions not dropping as much as projected. The same volume ofgas being produced with less well head pressure flow could need more overall actual compression to getto 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 studyto confirm thatthe emissions trends projected in the modeling have occurred. We note that there is some discussion of ERCs and DERCs in Appendix Bofthe proposal. That discussion indicates that there are 363 tpy ofNOx ERCs and over 6000 tons of DERCs. Please clarify the calculation that resulted in 17 tpd ofNOx 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 ifthe attainment demonstration takes into account any emergency use of DERCs beyond theflow 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 notthe DFW area had any exceedances monitored on those days and provide that in the documentation. SummaryofAnalysis ofthe Attainment Demonstration and WOE/Corroborative Analysis We appreciate TCEQ's efforts to provide comprehensive modeling using an episodethat includes additional days in attemptto 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 ofthe most difficult ozone scenarios. In addition, while current ozone trends and the model predictions supportthat ozone levels will continue to improve, it is not clearto EPA thatthese trends are sufficientforthe area to attain by 2018. Unfortunately, as discussed above, we anticipate that the attainment year ozone season forthe DFW area will likely be 2017 ratherthan 2018. The attainment demonstration will need to be reworked to provide forattainment by 2017. EPA stands ready to work with TCEQ to develop streamlined modeling approaches and weight ofevidence approaches for 2017. We note, however, that we believe it is likely that additional reductions will need to be included to demonstrate attainment. 6Figure 1: Long term DFW 8-hour monitoringtrends

..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** R

2 =0.86



# ------------------------------------- ' ' SG '

60 ----$-Eight-HourOzone Design Values -lii-One-HourOzone 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 Valuesarefram EPA'sAQS_

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 2018Rule 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 majorsources ofVOCs in the DFW 2008 eight-hourozone moderate nonattainment area (serious-- Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant, and moderate-- Wise). 1. Supportfor Revisions In general, we are supportive ofthis rule projectto implement RACTfor emissions sources of VOCs in the DFW ten county area. 2. Compliance Schedules forWise County At thetime ofthis review, Wise County is currently designated as nonattainmentforthe 2008 eight hourstandard. Subchapter A Definitions, Section 115.119 (h), Compliance Schedules states: "Upon the datethe commission publishes notice in the Texas RegisterthatWise County is no longer designated nonattainmentforthe 2008 Eight-HourOzone National Ambient Air QualityStandard, the owner or operator ofeach storage tank is not required to comply with any ofthe requirements in this division." This provision is not approvable as proposed because it does not contain a replicable procedure to change the applicability ofa SIP requirement. EPA's designation ofWise County is currently under review in the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals (Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. EPA). We understand that the litigation outcome and potential subsequent rulemaking by EPA concerning Wise County are unknown atthis time. Although we appreciate the commission's dilemma, ifWise 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. Phrasing similartothat quoted above occurs in multiple places throughoutthis 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: WaterSeparation, §115.139(e), Counties and Compliance Schedules. SubchapterC, Volatile Organic Compound TransferOperations, Division 1: Loading and Unloading ofVolatile Organic Compounds, §115.219(g) Counties and Compliance Schedules. SubchapterC, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 2: Filling ofGasoline Storage Vessels (Stage 1) for MotorVehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities, §115.229(f) Counties and Compliance Schedules.

8Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound TransferOperations, Division 3: Control ofVolatile Organic Compound Leads from TransportVessels, §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 (SubchapterA Definitions, §115.10 {11)) The definition ofthe "Dallas-Fort Worth area" has been revised to referto 3 different designations depending on the definition's applicabilityand based on the numberofcounties. 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 thatthe 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 particularsubchapters and divisions with the definition section to determinewhat 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 ofa reference which is somewhat problematic may be found in Subchapter C, Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Division 1: Loading and Unloading ofVolatile 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 itseems thatthe applicable definition is (C) forall 10 counties. However, in §115.219{f), we believe TCEQ intended this reference tothe DFW area to include only 9 counties {§115.10{11)(B)) because there is aseparate paragraph that provides requirements forWise County, §115.219{e). There are additional instances similartothis throughout the revisions. 9Project Number2013-014-SIP-NR Comments Addressingthe 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 forWise CountyL page 3- 12 ofthe submittal:theVOC target forthe 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 calculatingthe creditable RFP control reductions in NOx forthe nine previously designated counties between 2017 and 2018, shown on line 3 ofTable 3-15. The sum of NOx reductions projected for2017 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, butTable 3-15 shows 14.42. Please indicate where the additional 23.14tpd in NOx emission reductions has been placed (37.56 -14.42 = 23.14). We did notfind errors in such calculations forthe VOC emission reductions. The titles forTables 4-23 and 4-24 identifythem as providingthe RFP contingency demonstrations for the 2017 milestoneyear, butthe dates within the tables are 2018. Additionally, we believe several of the numbers provided in thesetables reflect emissions for 2018 ratherthan for 2017. The Airport Emissions Inventory-Wise County is within the DFW MSA and has airports, butthere is no mention ofWise County within the Airport El. Wise County had not been proposed as a nonattainment area when theAirport 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.

10Rule 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 ofammonia and carbon monoxide emissions which are not ozone precursors, and are therefore not necessary components ofTexas ozone SIP. As a result, EPA supports TCEQ for clearly identifyingthatthese sections are not intended for inclusion intothe EPAapproved Texas SIP. 2. EPA supports the inclusion of majorsources of NOx located in Wise Countyto become subject to requirements of30 TAC Chapter 117. 3. At the time ofthis review, Wise County is currently designated as nonattainmentforthe 2008 eighthourozone standard. Section 117.9030(a)(2} states: "Upon the datethe commission publishes notice in the Texas Register that Wise County is no longer designated nonattainmentforthe 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the owner oroperator ofa unit located at a majorstationary source of NOX located in Wise County is not required to comply with the requirements ofSubchapter B, Division 4 ofthis chapter." This provision is not approvable as proposed because it does not contain a replicable procedure to change the applicability ofaSIP requirement. EPA's designation ofWise County is currently under review in the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals (Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. EPA). We understand thatthe litigation outcome and potential subsequent rulemaking by EPA concerning Wise County are unknown at this time. Although we appreciate the commission's dilemma, ifWise County is no longer designated as nonattainment in thefuture, a publication by the commission in theTexas Registerthat 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 aSIP revision submitted by TCEQ after completion ofthe State's rulemaking process.

11

### INDEXOFORALTESTIMONY

January 15, 2015, 6:30p.m. -ArlingtonCityCouncil Chambers ReferenceNumber 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 

### Submittedby FaithChatham, DFWRegional Concerned Citizens HarrietIrby, DFWRCC DavidE. Cozad, Cozadfor Congress Tom "Smitty" Smith Karen Hadden, SustainableEnergyand EconomicDevelopment(SEED Coalition) JimSchermbeck, DownwindersatRisk Lon Burnam SandraDenBraber TameraBounds, MansfieldGasWell Awareness TracyCasto, Dallas CountyMedical Society Kim Feil JohnMacFarlane, GreaterFortWorth SierraClub Dewayne Quartermous,Lone StarChapter ofSierraClub

Ken Sambell, Downwinders SusybelleGosslee, League ofWomenVoters ofDallas LizWalley

### INDEXOF ORALTESTIMONY

January 15, 2015, 6:30p.m. -ArlingtonCity Council Chambers ReferenceNumber 0-17 0-18 

### Submittedby Cheryl Boswell, HealthandWellness Alliancewiththe Children's HealthSystem JimDuncan, NorthTexas Chapterofthe AmericanSolarEnergySociety, representing himself

INDEX OF ORALTESTIMONY January22, 2015, 10:00a.m. -Austin NOORALTESTIMONYWASRECEIVEDPERTAININGTO THISRULE 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 Tamera 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 11 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 21 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 31 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 

### 41 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 

### 51 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 61 

### 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 71 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. 81 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 91 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 to1 

### 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 111 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 I1 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 131 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. 141 

### 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 151 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 161 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 171 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, 181 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. 191 

### 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 

### 201 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 211 

### 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 

### 221 

### 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 231 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." 

### 241 

### 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 251 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 

### 261 

### 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 271 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 281 

### 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 

### 291 

### 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 301 

### 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 311 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 321 

### 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 331 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 341 

### 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 

### 351 

### 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 

### 361 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 371 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 381 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 391 

### 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 401 

### 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 411 

### 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 421 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 431 

### 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 441 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. 451 

### 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 461 

### 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. 471 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. 481 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. 491 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 501 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 511 

### 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. 521 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 531 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, 541 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) 

### 561 

### 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) 320-8690 57

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public 

# HearingRegistration Date:January15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD and RFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Arlington City Council Chambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgressStateImplementationPlanRevisionsforthe2008 Eight-HourOzone NAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (Circle One)

# ~F;.~-t~h 

# ch

# 0t:rh**~tf\_,** 1)

## \=""0 

# _.R 't

### c

### 1; 

## 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

# 5rnI

# ~+\_ 

# 'f "Jotl

# c

# tl-hzet/L- (9No 

### I 

# @No

-

# )~vV\**tt-rwt~** SE[D**t.c>aJ~·fi**fJV\__



## ---- 

# l**~~~iL\o \~l~~**  VDvvnt;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,

## (2,~ 

# \-

# R~ frl-



# - Arlington 6:30P.M. P 

### _______________________________________________, ________, _______,______________________________________ age ·

# Texas Commissionon

# EnvironmentalQuality Public HearingRegistration Date: January 15,2015 

### Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and 2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; DFW2008 Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Arlington City CouncilChambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 

### 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgressStateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? 

### (PleasePrint) 

### (CircleOne)

# ~ [_ I'JV'I ·

# B1; 

# r II\;, (IV', 

# St:_,/A**~** 

# SNo

-.:::J I • \... '-" 

# ())l

# I

-- 

# 4**~~**

# 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

# TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public HearingRegistration Date: January 15, 2015 

### Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-ns-Al, 2013-049-117-Al, and2014-007-101-AI SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; EmissionsBanking andTradingUpdate; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions Location:Arlington City Council Chambers Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainment Demonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlanRevisions forthe 2008 Eight-HourOzone NAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) /\ 

### (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**~**

# ~}cuet\\/JY'-

# Yes~ <"

# (3~_aY\ )')()'()

# \~c-r**co~ ~** 

# --

- 

# TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public HearingRegistration Date: January 15,2015 

### Time: 6:30P.M. RuleProjects: 

### 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI SIPProjects: 

### 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR ShortTitle: 

### DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; EmissionsBanking andTradingUpdate; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions Location:

### Arlington City Council Chambers Concerning:

### ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 115, and 117 

### andtheproposedDFWAttainment Demonstration andReasonableFurtherProgressStateImplementationPlanRevisionsforthe2008Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS

# Ca_vry(~ Name (PleasePrint)

\ 

# 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 ej t1v "' (, 

### Yes@ 

### _f...-'"

# f:,H 

# a**At;....~,~** r 

# T;.:- ;':)

# ~ .fi-e-If- 

# YG

\ Yes 

# €} 5 

# e-1-r-

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public HearingRegistration Date:January 15, 2015 

### Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-Al SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions Location:ArlingtonCity Council Chambers Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlanRevisionsforthe 2008Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name 

### (PleasePrint) Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (Circle One)

# \~~--·:)_· __

# ,_~ ___ [)

__

# /_U_~~~~A~V~l~/______________

# ~---------'-'______________________ _, ____

# ~---------·**----~** .5ELF Yes 

# 6

tr 

### Yes 

## @

v 

### Yes 

# fV

l ) 

# u Yes No

--·········--·--··-········---·-·-·····---.--.-.-.......

# __ ·····-··-----·-------·-----·····--·--"··-·-.-----·--.--.-.-----.

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date:January 15, 2015 Time: 6:30P.M. RuleProjects: 2013-048-ns-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand 2013-014-SIP-NR ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking andTradingUpdate; DFW2008 Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions Location:ArlingtonCity Council Chambers Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe 2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (Circle One)

# ).;J?d~ 

# f-k1/1

# 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 Er

# t'7Ae-e_¥~**~** .( 

### YesQ 

# 4(-e_y

# c~£-ev 

# k**.,S~** ;<( / ;::., 

# 4A**C:~/l? /~s;::-c:__p** **Yes~** 

# :J**/V;)L~ ~**  

## " 

# ·;qJj<;:f'

# p Yes@

# (:'/.~ 

# I::;;. --· I.Pr- ' 

# ·; v 

### Yes No



### Yes No



### .**!\!~!ing!_~!!** 

### 6:**3_Q_~.M.** 

### _____ -----······-·-......-·-·----······-·····--------- 

### Page

# TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date:January15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. RuleProjects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; 

### DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Axlington City Council Chambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlanRevisionsfor the2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (CircleOne)

..**~·**

# \::-~

# &/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

# ~0**~EN** SI-\NV:S

# e L c_**))~** 

# 'AJN 

# 0J!rJ})**~.~** Yes No 

### Yes No 

### Yes No 

### Yes No

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date: January 15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; DFW 2008 Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Arlington City Council Chambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration and ReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe 2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (Circle One)



### ..-

# v&ciA 

# !Jc 1'/J

# J!?;Z'?-f- /)uAW/J;/&

# ol

# A's!:**~** J**~** I I



# - {] 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

# TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date: January 15, 2015 

### Time: 6:30P.M. RuleProjects: 

### 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI SIPProjects: 

### 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR ShortTitle: 

### DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; EmissionsBanking andTradingUpdate; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Arlington City CouncilChambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlan Revisionsfor the 2008Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS

-c;(OlA 

### Name (PleasePrint) 

### Representing Presenting

### OralTestimony? (Circle One)

# Yes(~~

Yes 

# i!!j{)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No



### Yes No

# Texas CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date:January 15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. RuleProjects: 

### 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI SIPProjects: 

### 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

# I ShortTitle: 

### DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions Banking andTradingUpdate; DFW2008 Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions Location:

### Arlington CityCouncilChambers Concerning: 

### ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration and ReasonableFurtherProgressStateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe 2008Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (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

# TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date: January 15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. 

### RuleProjects: 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-AI, and2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; EmissionsBanking andTrading Update; DFW 2008Eight-HourOzoneAD andRFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:Arlington City Council Chambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto 30TexasAdministrative Code Chapters 101, 

### 115, and 117 andtheproposed

### DFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgressStateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? (PleasePrint) (CircleOne) 

# '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 CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality PublicHearingRegistration Date:January15,2015 Time: 6:30P.M. Rule Projects: 

### 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-Al, and2014-007-101-AI 

### SIPProjects: 2013-015-SIP-NRand2013-014-SIP-NR 

### ShortTitle: DFWNOx andVOC RACT Rules; Emissions BankingandTradingUpdate; DFW2008Eight-HourOzoneAD and RFP SIP Revisions 

### Location:ArlingtonCityCouncil Chambers 

### Concerning: ProposedRevisionsto30TexasAdministrativeCode Chapters 101, 115, and 117 andtheproposedDFWAttainmentDemonstration andReasonableFurtherProgress StateImplementationPlan Revisionsforthe 2008 Eight-HourOzoneNAAQS Name Representing PresentingOral Testimony? (PleasePrint) (Circle One) 

# /\JE:J[_

# S-nSA~>tf1At0J TAr'(_P-FivuT 

# 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 CommissiononEnvironmentalQuality Public Hearing Registration Date:January 22, 2015 

### Time: 10:00

### a.m. RuleProjectNo.: 2013-015-SIP-NR, 2013-014-SIP-NR, 2013-048-115-AI, 2013-049-117-Al ShortTitle: DFW2008Eight-HourOzoneAD SIPRevision, DFW2008Eight-HourOzoneStandardRFPSIPRevision,VOC RACTRulesforthe DFW2008Eight-HourOzoneNonattainmentArea,NOx RACTRulesfortheDFW2008Eight-HourOzoneNonattainmentArea Location: 12100Park35 CircleAustin,Texas78753

Name Representing PresentingOralTestimony? 

### (PleasePrint) (CircleOne)

# 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_,_

### HEARINGOFFICERREPORT

I 

### amthehearingofficer assignedtoconductthepublichearingregarding:

e VOC RACT 

### Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea, 2013-048- 115-AI**«~** 

### NOx RACT 

### Rules for the DFW 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea, 2013-049- 117-AI 

### e DFW2008Eight-Hour Ozone StandardRFP SIPRevision, 2013-014-SIP-NR e DFW 2008 Eight-HourOzoneAD SIP Revision, 2013-015-SIP-NR 

### A public hearing was scheduled in Austin TX on January 22, 

### at 10:00 

### a.m. in BuildingE, Room 2018,

### at 12100

### Park35Circle. TCEQ 

### staffand a courtreporter werepresentforthepublichearing. At 10:00

### a.m.theroomwas openedandTCEQ staffwas availableto thepublicfor 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 ontherecord. Therefore, thepublichearingwas notformally opened for commentandatranscriptwas notprepared.

Datesigned