### Od.15. i

### !2007 2:01PM AEP ES WEST No.2516 P. 1

# ~AMER'CAN®
........CTR.C POfNER

1201 Elm Street, Suite 800, Dallas,**Tex~s** 

## 75270

P.O. Box 660164, Dallas, Texas**75266~0164** 

## FACSIMILE COVER SHEET This facsimile transmittal from FAX # 214-777-1138 

## Date of Transmission: 

# ,a/Is7aN7 To: 

# EDDt E T6AAIL

# L Fax Number: 

# 405· 702.4'0 

# I From: 

# NeN·l)HARMArtAT4A1 Environmental Services Department Call 

### 214!777

- 1013 

### Or 214/777

- 1559 for transmission problems 

## Number of pages including cover sheet: 

# M. : LAry.)' R 

# • 

# • P'CASE HAAI• 

# OIJL'Vclt '" 

# M
....**T~IlR'L** 

# ..

The Information contained in this facsimile message Is confIdential and Is intended for the use ofthe Individual or entity named above. If the readercfthis message is notthe Intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copying ofthis communication Is strictly prohibited.

. 

## -

# ..

# Oct 15."2007 2:01PM 

## AEP ES WEST No.2516 P. 2 Amorican Electric Power flO.**Bo~** 660164 Dallas.

### rx**75~6B·0164** www.aep.com



### Sentbv 

### Facsimile October15,2007 Mr, EddieTerrill Division 

### Director AirQuality Division Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 707 North Robinson, 

### P.O. Box 

### 1677 Oklahoma 

### City Oklahoma 73101-1677 Reference: September 14,2007 ODEQ letterfrom Eddie Terrill to Dharmarajan**S~bject** BestAvailable RetrofitTechnology (BART) Southwestern Power

### Station, Northeastern PowerStation, COmanche PowerStation 

### DearMr. Terrill: I am pleased 

### to respond to the ODEQ letter

### of September 14, 2007 

### regarding the BART requirements for 

### the power plants owned and operated 

### by American Electric Power/Public 

### Service COmpany of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO), 

### Through this 

### letter, 

### we would like to rebut the EPA Region 

### 6 interpretation 

### of the 

### BART assessment required 

### underthe regional 

### haze rulefor

### these

### facilities and also respond to 

### the follow-on actionsthatthe ODEQ has 

### requested ofAEP/PSO

.. We are available

### to meet

### with you and your 

### staffanytime soon 

### to help resolve 

### the apparent differences of opinion that may have arisen from EPA Region 6's analysis regarding these plants, so that the ODEQ regional haze SIP submittal deadline by mid-December

### (With our March 

### 30, 2007 commitments included) 

### Is notcompromised. 

### At the outset, AEPIPSO reoontirmsthatthe BART commitments reflected In our 

### March 30, 2007 BART proposal to the ODEQ for these power

### stations meet the requirements of40 

### CFR Part51, Regional. Haze. Regulatione andOuldelines for 

### 'Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Detennlnationej Final Rule (70 Fed Reg.July6, 2005). We reaffirm that 

# • For

### the Northeastem units 3 A 4 (dry-bottom Tangentially-fired boiler burning low sulfur-coal), the presumptive limits of 0.15 LbslMMBtu for S02 and 0.15 LbsIMMBtu for NOX' will be complied 

### with, as a minimum, as specified and mandated for power plants greater than 750 MN (see above Final Rule pages 39131-36), based on a 30.<Jay 

### rolling average. fJ.s for PM, In keeping with the modeling work that was performed and submitted 

### to the ODEQ, the existing electrostatic precipitators (ESP) will satisfy BART. 

## • For

## the Southwestem 

### Power Station and Comanche Power stations, in 

### accordanc'e with 

### the language 

### contained in the above referenced Final Rule (page 39136, 

### col. 1), 

### we will comply with the requirement in paragraph 

### titled 

## on and Gas 

### units and meet the NOX obligations through 

### Uinstallation ofcurrentcombustion control technology" specific

### to these sources. We are confused with 

### the EPA Region 6's analysis and ·are 

### not certain 

### we fully 

### understand what it is relying on for Its apparent position and statements reflected in ils letter that 

### you forwarded as an aHachment We can only conjecturethattheir comments are based on a response made in a DRAFT 

# .... 

# -

...

## Oct. 15. 2007 2:02PM 

## AEP ES WEST 

## No. 2516 P. 3·

.

• Page2 october 15, 2007 Q&A document that EPA staff put

## oUt in the 

### fall of 

### 2005. 

### As far as we are aware, the Q&A document has not been made final which makes us pause and question the over arching nature of Region 6's comments

.. I am including' as an**attachmen~** language from the Final Rules 

### to back-up AEP/PSO's BART determination basis and some additional Final Rule material for use by the ODEQ in ilS response 

### to EPA Region 6, ifneeded.

. As a matterof general observation, 

### we suspect that Region 

### 6 may be superimposing the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPG) requirements of the Regional Haze Rules on an eligible EGU planfs BART process. However, the RPG and BART processes are on different regulatory 

### tracks, even though they are covered underthe Regional Haze Rules umbrella.

. The BART process would appearto betechnology driven, which in the case ofan eligible EGU plant is predicated on selecting 

### a technology 

### to meet the presumptive limits specified in the rules. Moreover, the rules do not require that a post-BART modeling 

### be performed 

### to justify the teChnology 

### selected.
In contrast, the RPG process is Class 1 specific, where assessment 

### of impacts by several source categories from several states and international regions are to be considered subsequent to 

### BART application (at BART eligible source categories) in different slates. 

### This RPG process may take into 

### account a four-factor analysis to discern what would be reasonable for states to require of 

### itS different source categories 

### to address the RPG needs of a Class 1 area. Here again, recognizing the all encompassing nature ofdifferentsource categories and differentstates thatcan impactagiven Class 1 area, 

### the EPA formed the Regional Planning Organizations (RPO) to collectiVely address the reduCtion needs underthe RPG process and 

### to help develop approaches for 

### its member states to consider for Inclusion in their SIPs, without punitively encumbering sources In any given state. The states are given the flexibility to decide ifsuggested**measu~** are reasonable, before requiring their sources to make incremental reductions. The distinction between BARTand the RPG process seem clearand

### we would liketo emphasize the importance Ofdeooupllng the obligations underthe

### twotracks. In conclusion, the BART submittals for the AEP/PSO plants meet the strictures of the BART· presumptive limits called for in the Final Rules. We recommend 

### that the state 

### reflect ourcommitments in 

### its regional haze SIP submittal as the applicable requirements for these units. We do 

### not intend 

### to perfonn thefive-point analysitas requested In your letter. AEP/PSO will 

### beconducting the NSR appliCabilityand the follow-on pennltling actions associated with 

### the BART controls thatwill installed 

### to meet the presumptive limitobligations. These 

### will be perfonned priorto pennitapplication. Sincerely,

# N·N·~ N. N. Dhannarajan Environmental ServicesAEPJPSO Strategy

## & Planning 

## cc: H. L. Ground

. B. W. Moore 

# .­

# ad. 15."" 2007 2:02PM 

## AEP ES WEST No. 2516 P. 4

Attachment 1

Final Rule language that support use ofthe presumptive limits fortheAEP/PSO sources and additional exoelpts

### to highlight OOEQ's obligations and EPAexpectations for BART eligible EGU sources The discussion 

### ofthe presumptive'limits in the preamble to the Final Rules speaks in terms ofthe state having the flexibility to depart from the presumptive limits based on a five-factor analysis, 

### if it conducts such an analysis. This language could be read to suggest that the state does not have an obligationtoconductthatanalysis ' Equally important in the preamble 

### to the final rule is the emphasis 

### by the 

### EPA that there is strong presumption (in the c:ontext 

### of EGUs) 

### that 750+ MW plants will be subject 

### to the BART presumptive limits
- 

### nottoeither more stringentorless stringent limits. For example, in the BART Final Rules, 70 Fed, Reg. July

### 6,2005at 39131. col. 2, the paragraph**~ed** 

### FinalRulestates: '
• "

...we are finalizing specific presumptive limits for S02 and NOx for certain EGUs based on fuel, type, unit size, cost effectiveness and the presence or absence of pre-eldsting controls. ' '

• "The presumptive limits apply to EGUs at power plants with a total generating capacity in excess of750 

### MN

... "


### • "States, as ageneral matter, must

..quire ownersand operators ofgreaterthan 750 MW power plants to meetthese (presumptive) BART emission limits

... Although we believe that these requirements are extremely likely 

### to be appropriate for all greater than 750 WI power plants subject

### to BART, a State 

### MAY establish different requirements IF 

### the 

### State can demonstrate that an alternative determination isjustified based on a consideration ofthe five statutory factors." (Note: the need for this alternative determination (I negative detennination) 1& clarified In 1 later citation below and would be the trigger for the invocationof8 fiv..ractorstatutory consideration) There are other passages providing for states 

### to use the presumptive limits, without c:onduetlng a five-factoranalysis, 

### If

### they choosetodo80.Again, 70 Fed. Reg. 39131 

### (XlI. 2: reads:

• "the pl'8Sumptive limitsfinalized in today's rulemaking 

### I'9f1ecthighlycost effective technologies as well as provideenough 11exibility

### for States totake particularcircumstances into accounf


### • qBased on ouranalYSis of

### emissions from power plants, 

### we believe that applying these highly cost-effective controls 

### at the large power plants covered by these guidelines would result 

### in significant improvements in 

### visibility and help 

### to ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibilitygoal." (emphasis added). Language in the preamble. suggestive ofwhen five-factoranalysis maybe required are amplified upon examining these passages:


### • uYou(the States} MUST require 750 

### MN power plants 

### to meet specific c:ontrols for S02 

### of either 95 percent control or 0,15 lbs/MMBtu, 

### for 

## each EGU greater than 200 WI 

### that Is currently uncontrolled, UNLESS you determine that an alternative control level is justified 

### based on a careful consideration 

### of the statutory factors. Thus, for example, IF 

### the source 

### demonstrates circumstances affeCting its abilitY 

### to cost=effectiVely reduce itS emissions, you should 

### take that into account in determining whether the presumptive levels of c:ontrol are 

### appropriate for

### that facility" 70 Fed, Reg, 39171001.1 

### (emphasis added).

## Oct. 15. 2007 2:02PM 

# AEP ES WEST No. 2516 P. 5;.

• Page2 October 15, 2007

• "You (the States) should require such utility boilers to meet the following (presumptive) NOx emission limits, 

### UNLESS you detennine that an alternative control level is justified based on consideration ofstaMory 

### factorsu 70 Fed. Reg. 39171 col. 

### 3(emphasis added). • COllectivelytaken, these rule languages would suggest that:
a. 

### It 

### was pointless to establish these extremely strong presumptions if states nevertheless were subject to a requirement, in every case, 

### to condud a**flVe~factor** analysis 

### forthesources 

### towhich the presumption applied**b~** . It is not a requirement for the states or the 

### EGU sourteS subject to the presumptive limits 

### to perfonn further BART related**fiv~factor** analysis 

### if the 

### EPA has already performed 

### its independent analysis before arriving at the presumptive limits in the rules

c. That EGU sources subjectto presumptive limits are to only selectthe technology that meetthe limits specified in the rules (along the lines We have offered up in Ollr March 30,2007 letterto the ODEQ) and d. The five factor analysis comes into play 

### only if a 

### source seeks an altemative (to a presumptive limit) detennination.

Thus the EPA is not ambivalent about the situations under which the five-factor analysis oould be invoked in 

### the rules
- Would come

### Into play if a source &eeka relieffor

### not being 

### able to comply with the presumptive limits. AEP/P$O has agreed to the presumptive limits for our BART affeeted plams per

### the rules and 

### thus the 

### five-factor analysis is 

### notan issue forthese 

### sources.

an 

### added reintoroement, further research into 

### the BART proposal language (the 

### then proposed preamble language) dating 

### back to May

### 5, 2004 

### reconfirms that afive-factoranalysis 

### Is not rnandatory for plants subject to 

### the presumptive limitS: "This (502) presumption would apply UNLESS the State has PERSUASIVE evidence 

### that. an altematlve determination isjustified: 69 Fed. Reg. 25199 

### 001. 2 (emphasis added) (May 5,20(4). There's similar language at 69. Fed. Reg. 25199

## cot. 3 and 25200 col. 1. For NOx, EPA said; 

### "States should determine In almost every case that these (presumptive) control levels represent a reasonable determination of 

### BART for large EGUs. d 69. Fed. Reg. 25202 

### col.3.