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: E DDt 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 of the Individual or entity named above. If 

the reader cfthis message is not the Intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copying of this 

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 

Sent bv Facsimile 

October15,2007 

Mr, Eddie Terrill 

Division Director 

Air Quality Division 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 

707 North Robinson, 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City 

Oklahoma 73101-1677 

Reference: September 14, 2007 ODEQ letter from Eddie Terrill to Dharmarajan 

S~bject Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Southwestern Power Station, Northeastern Power Station, COmanche Power Station 

Dear Mr. 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 under the regional haze rule for these facilities and also respond to the 

follow-on actions that the ODEQ has requested ofAEP/PSO.. 

We are available to meet with you and your staff anytime 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 not compromised. 

At the outset, AEPIPSO reoontirms that the BART commitments reflected In our March 30, 2007 BART 

proposal to the ODEQ for these power stations meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Regional. 

Haze. Regulatione andOuldelines for 'Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Detennlnationej Final Rule (70 Fed Reg. July 6, 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 of current combustion 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 conjecture that their 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, if needed. . 

As a matter of 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 under the Regional Haze Rules umbrella. . 

The BART process would appear to be technology driven, which in the case of an 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 of different source categories and different states that can impact a given Class 1 

area, the EPA formed the Regional Planning Organizations (RPO) to collectiVely address the reduCtion 

needs under the 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 if suggested measu~ are reasonable, before requiring their sources to make 

incremental reductions. The distinction between BART and the RPG process seem clear and we would 

like to emphasize the importance Of deooupllng the obligations under the two tracks. 

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 our commitments 

in its regional haze SIP submittal as the applicable requirements for these units. We do not intend to 

perfonn the five-point analysit as requested In your letter. 

AEP/PSO will be conducting the NSR appliCability and the follow-on pennltling actions associated with 

the BART controls that will installed to meet the presumptive limit obligations. These will be perfonned 

prior to pennit application. 

Sincerely, 

N·N·~ 

N. N. Dhannarajan 

Environmental Services AEPJPSO 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 of the presumptive limits for the AEP/PSO sources and additional 

exoelpts to highlight OOEQ's obligations and EPA expectations for BART eligible EGU sources 

The discussion of the presumptive 'limits in the preamble to the Final Rules speaks in terms of the 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 obligation to conduct that analysis ' 

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 - not to either more stringent or less stringent limits. For example, in the BART Final Rules, 

70 Fed, Reg. July 6,2005 at 39131. col. 2, the paragraph ~ed Final Rule states: ' 

• 	 " ... 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 of 750 MN..." 

• 	 "States, as a general matter, must ..quire owners and operators of greater than 750 MW 

power plants to meet these (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 is justified based on a consideration of the 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 

invocation of 8 fiv..ractor statutory consideration) 

There are other passages providing for states to use the presumptive limits, without c:onduetlng a 

five-factor analysis, Ifthey choose to do 80. Again, 70 Fed. Reg. 39131 (XlI. 2: reads: 

• 	 "the pl'8Sumptive limits finalized in today's rulemaking I'9f1ect highly cost effective technologies 

as well as provide enough 11exibility for States to take particular circumstances into accounf 

• 	 qBased on our analYSis 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 visibility goal." (emphasis added). 

Language in the preamble. suggestive of when five-factor analysis 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 of staMory factorsu 

• 70 Fed. Reg. 39171 col. 3 (emphasis added).

COllectively taken, 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 for the sources to which 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 subject to presumptive limits are to only select the technology that 

meet the limits specified in the rules (along the lines We have offered up in Ollr March 

30,2007 letter to 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 relief for 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 not an issue for these sources. 

an added reintoroement, further research into the BART proposal language (the then proposed 

preamble language) dating back to May 5, 2004 reconfirms that a five-factor analysis 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 is justified: 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.