Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 1 September 23 , 2013

Karin McGowan Interim Executive Director Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek S outh Drive Denver, CO 80246

VIA EMAIL TO KARIN.MCGOWAN@STATE.CO.US AND TO CDPHE.COMMENTSAPCD@STATE.CO.US

Re: Serious Violations of the New SO2 NAAQS by Martin Drake Electrical Generating Facility in Colorado Springs

– Curtailment or Cease Operation Order is Necessary Immediately

Director McGowan:

The Martin Drake facility in Colorado Springs is a 278 MW coal

- fired electrical generating stati on (CDPHE Permit Number 950PEP107) that was constructed in the 1960’s

. More than 40 years following the passage of the Clean Air Act, t he Martin Drake’s operating permit allows it to emit 14,400 tons p er year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), with absolutely no constraints that limit the plant’s SO2 emissions to ensure that its impacts are not injurious to human health.

Since the advent of the Clean Air Act regulations of the 1970’s , US EPA has set maximum permi ssible ambient levels of pollutants called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . The levels are set
to protect the he alth of any group of the p opulation from exposure to pollutant levels that incur health effects . In 2010, US EPA set a new 1

- hour NAAQS for SO2 to replace the then

- current 24

- hour and annual SO2 NAAQS. To determine the level of the new NAAQS, US EPA relie d on a thorough compilation of epidemiological and medical observations on the known and potential health effects from SO2 exposure. This database shows the strong positive association between respiratory morbidity events (i.e., emergency room visits and h ospitalizations) to the ambient SO2 concentrations to which the sufferers were exposed. 1

Importantly for Colorado Springs, US EPA’s rationale in setting a new short

- term standard in part
stem med from numerous epidemiological studies that show positive associations between exposure to ambient SO2 concentrations and re spiratory symptoms in children ( including emergency room visits and hospitalizations for all r espiratory causes )

- in areas where the previous NAAQS were met. 2 The association be tween exposure to short

- term ambient SO2 concentrations and asthma symptoms

, in areas where air quality monitors show ed attainment for pre

- 2010 standards

, extends to all age groups.

This letter reports on a mbient air quality modeling results that are derived using 1) US EPA

- and CDPHE

recommended procedures

, 3 2) plant emission limits that are allowed by CDPHE, and 3) stack flow

1 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58., Federal Register, June 22, 2010; p. 35526.
2 Similarly
, Colorado Springs met the pre

- 2010 24

- hour and annual standard s. 3 US EPA’s “Guideline o n Air Quality Models, ” also published as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. This analysis uses five years of meteorological data from Colorado Springs Municipal Airport (surface data) and Denver International Airport (closest upper air station), and geographic elevations from USGS data sources.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 2 characteristics based on actual test results

. 4 These AERMOD results show that the Martin Drake facility’s permit currently allows emissions that violate the SO2 NAAQS egregiously

– i.e

. , by more than five times the maximum level of pollutants that US EPA deems safe to human health

– frequently throughout the year, and over large populated sections of Colorado Springs. This si tuation, whereby the health of the residents of Colorado Springs is ignored and repudiated while the faci lity’s operations
go untethered, must be corrected immediately. Figure 1 and Table 1 present these results.

4 Airtech Environmental Services, “ Report on the Relative Accuracy Test Audits Conducted for Colorado Springs Utilities at the Martin Drake Power Plant, Units 5, 6 and 7,” for test d ates between May 30 and June 6, 2013. These reports were relayed to Air Expertise Colorado through a Colora do Open Reco rds Act r equest in September, 2013.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 3 TABLE 1

- TEN WORST LOCATIONS FOR 1

- HOUR ALLOWABLE IMPACTS OF SULFUR DI OXIDE BY MARTIN DRAKE FACILITY (MULTIPLE OTHER LOCATIONS OF EXCEEDANCES OCCUR AS INDICATED ON FIGURE 1)

1. 1147. ug/m 3  5 times the NAAQS Area near Mesa Trail and Red Rock Canyon Trail 2 1030.  5 times the NAAQS West of El Pomar Road, near Starsmore Discovery Center 3 915.  4 times the NAAQS Area of Preserve Drive and Brantfeather Grove 4 831.  4 times the NAAQS Area of Broadmore Bluffs Drive 5 823.  4 times the NAAQS Area west of RioGrande Road and Cresta Road 6 788.  4 times the NAAQS Residential area west of El Pomar Road 7 777.  3 times the NAAQS Upper floors of downtown office towers in vicinity of Tejon and Colorado Streets. 8 755.  3 times the NAAQS Area near Cheyenne Mountain High School 9 744.  3 times the NAAQS Area near Scorpio Circle and Scorpio Drive 10. 737.  3 times the NAAQS Area of Astro Drive and Virgo Drive Notes : 1

- hour impacts equal the 5

- year average of the 4 th highest 1

- hour values calculated using daily maximum 1

- hour values. This means that there are multiple hourly occurrences of impacts in excess of the concentration level of the NAAQS. Addtionally, these results under

- predict total exposure by a) not including backgrou nd concentrations and b) not evaluating impacts at a ll elevated office buildings and other tall structures in the area.

Air Quality Modeling Procedures

The results reported on here derive from application of US EPA’s AERMOD model, with procedures that conform to the Guideline that is prescribed by federal law. The first release of AERMOD (in 2004 ) followed approximately a decade of research and development by air quality scientists and meteorologists (AERMOD was produced through a collaboration of US EPA and the American Meteorological Society). Subsequently, the version of AERMOD applied herein (v. 12345) includes additional improvements developed throughout the approximate

- decade of application following the first version’s release.

US EPA concluded 5 on the basis of multiple databases that c ompare model prediction by AERMOD to monitoring results for facilities with downwash characteristics (like this facility), that overall , the ratio between the maximum predicted to maximum o bserved concentrations is 0.97 (i.e., the maximum predicted AERMOD concentration is approximately equal to the maximum observed concentration )

. In short, the AERMOD model performs very well in simulating actual air quality impacts of facilities like the Martin Drake.

The next step of the modeling analysis of the Martin Drake facility should be the use of the se AERMOD results to evaluate the costs of the health effects for Colorado Springs’ residents , and of the benefits of reducing pollutant levels from the Martin Drake facility. Such an evaluation is possible: t he US EPA’s BenMAP program 6 uses a Geographic Information System that is linked to US Census Bureau population and demographic data

, to estimate the health impacts and economic benefits that occur when populations experience changes in their exposure to a ir pollutant s . Such an accounting of the full costs that Colorado Springs residents bear, from the health effects associated with exposure to Martin Drake ’s emissions were disclosed, would likely show astounding results, and should be included in any eval uation of the Martin Drake’s viability.

5 Model Evaluation Paper, dated 2004, posted at US EPA’s Technology Transfer Network/Support Center for Regulatory Models.
6 http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/

.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 4 Air Quality Modeling Preferred over Monitoring by US EPA for Areas with Large Sources

Unfortunately for the citizens of Colorado Springs, multiple statements by Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) 7 display ignorance of the citizen p rotections and mechanisms of the Clean Air A ct regulations that apply to the Martin Drake ’s emissions

. A s reported i n January, 2013, CSU spokesman Dave Grossman stated that “ongoing local monitoring between 1988 and 2007 showed that sulfur dioxide levels were significantl y lower than the EPA threshold. ” Grossman neglects to mention that any monitoring that was discontinued in 2007 (as he states) could not have addressed compliance with a new standard that was not even proposed u ntil 2010.

I n 2010 , when US EPA promulgated the final rule of the new SO2 NAAQS

, the agency devoted significant po rtions of the rule to establish that its preference is that air quality modeling is preferred over monitoring when evaluating pollutant levels in areas where large pollutant sources operate. US EPA
states that “it is more appropriate and efficient to principally use modeling to assess compliance for medium to larger sources, and to rely more on monitoring for groups of smaller sources and sources not as conducive to modeling.” 8

Yet, in January

, 2013, CSU spokesman Gro ssman disparages another study 9 (after its results show ed severe violations of health

- based stan dards by Martin Drake emissions) because it applied exactly the
met hodology and procedures that US EPA prefers (“ the sulfur dioxide study commissioned by the Sierra Club uses theoretical modeling only” ). Grossman goes further in providing misleading information, by stating that “[t]he EPA has not yet published guidance on appropriate assumptions for this type of modeling

, ” despite the fact that in 2010, US EPA published , as a follow

- up to the new NAAQS, the “Guidance for 1

- Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions

. ” 10 T his guidance stipulates the assumptions for exactly the type of m odeling that was (and still is) CSU’s un

- met duty to perform. These s tatements by CSU display a reckless neglect and lack of due diligence by the Board towards the air quality regulations and proceedings that bear directly on its duty to maintain safe op eration of the Martin Drake facility.

A Full Accounting of Impacts on Residents and Nearby Recreational Areas Must Occur Now

Timing is propitious for an immediate remedy to this si tuation, due to several factors. First, a very costly study of potential long

- term operating scenarios (i.e., at a cost of approximately 1⁄2 million dollars) is being undertaken now, underwritten by the taxpa yers of this municipally

- owned facility

. 11 Distressingly, the scope of this costly study does not include ass essment of any of the long

- term scenarios’ operational compliance with NAAQS. It is not clear how the C SU’s Board intends to intelligently judge the legality and efficacy of long

- term operation of the facility, when it lacks knowledge of whether or not fu ture options emit pollutants that impact city residents at unhealthful levels.

7 Spokesman Grossman also stated that “[i] n fact, t he levels each year generally ranged from 12 PPB to 26 PPB, well below the new standard. The monitoring program was discontinued in 2007 because SO2 levels were consistently so far below EPA’s standard

... ” at http://csbj.com/2013/01/17/sierra

- club

- study

- eyes

- drake

- plants

emissions/

/

. 8 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 50, 53 and 58., Federal Register, June 22, 2010; p. 355 70.
9 “ Martin Drake Power Plant

- Colorado Springs, Colorado

- Sierra Club Evaluation of Compliance with 1

- hour SO2 NAAQS,” Report by Wingra Engineering, October 4, 2012, at http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/colorado/update/15

- jan

- 2013/release

- martin

- drake

- so2

- modeling

- shows

- violations

- post

- modifications.

10 “Guidance for 1

- Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions,” see Appendix A

- Modeling Guidance for Nonattainment Areas and Section 110(a)(1) Plans. htt p://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/DraftSO2Guidance_9

- 22

- 11.pdf

. 11 Study of Alternatives related to the Potential Decommissioning of the Martin Drake Power Plant, Awarded to HDR, with estimated time and material cost of $465,000.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 5 Second, the citizens of Colorado Springs will soon be underwriting another very costly (a 120 million dollar project) to insta ll an SO2 control system, again, with no assuran ce that the Martin Drake will operate in compliance with the NAAQS. In recent correspondence, CSU stated that there currently is no 1

- hour SO2 emission rate guarantee to which the vendor will be constrained for operation at Martin Drake. 12 Guarantees of emission rates in accordance with the time basis of NAAQS rates are standard procedure for control technology vendors, and such an emission guarantee should have been demanded by CSU as a condition of the SO2 control vendor’s contract.

While levels of SO2 control on the order of 90% are reported for the planned technology, it is important to note that wet flue gas desulfurization techniques (like the planned system) often cool the flue gas. This cooling of flue gas occurs due to the evaporation of t he injected wet slurry with which the sulfur in the flue gas reacts. 13 Unfortunately, this reduction in flue gas temperature also leads to a reduction in flue gas buoyancy, in part offsetting the reduction in SO2 at ground

- based impacts of the plume in th e vicinity of the plant.

To iterate, a full demonstration of the plant’s current, as well as future

, compliance with NAAQS is immediately necessary in order for the citizens of Colorado Springs (the purchasers of the very costly SO2 control system) to understand whether or not it will protect them from unhealthful levels of air pollution. This demonstration must take into account the :

1) proposed operating characteristics of the facility with the implementation of the SO2 control system, including any re duction in flue gas buoyancy; 2) all changed downwash characteristics due to new lime

, limestone or reagent silos; 3) all pollutants and byproducts that t he new control system may increase with it operation, including particulate matter emissions from the lime, limestone or reagent silos and within the flue gas.

T his air quality analysis should also evaluate th e detriment to visibility on all nearby recreational and scenic a reas that may result for the current and future scenarios, due to the important contribution to the commerce of Colorado Springs that recreation and scenery represent

.

Essential Elements of the Facility’s Ambient Air Quality Compliance Demonstration

To iterate, full ambient air quality compliance demonstration of the facility’s cu rrent and future operations should proceed immediately. I f these are to truly establish the maximum impacts of operation of this facility on Colorado Sp r ings , these analyses must:

- Follow the procedures stipulated by US EPA within federal law (40 CFR Part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, i.e., the “Guideline” ) ;

- Simulate impacts using f ive years of local and regional meteorological data, processed according to the Guideline;

- Calculate impacts for a full network of r eceptors that include s all elevated str uctures within a 10 kilometer radius of the facility (i.e., receptors should be placed at the tops and all floors of downtown office towers) ;

12 Correspondence from John Butler of Colorado Springs Ut ilities to M. Barrett, August 28, 2013. Mr. Butl er stated that he was relaying information from the environmental division of CSU that there is no guarantee for a 1

- hour emission rate for the SO2 contr ol system.
13 A portion of the water in the slurry is evaporated and the waste gas stream becomes saturated with water vapor. See US EPA’s Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Shee t, EPA

- 452/F

- 03

- 034, Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)

- Wet, Spray Dry, and Dry Scrubbers, at www.epa.gov/ttn/catc.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 6 - Include within he receptor network a ll locations where sensitive individuals (children, asthmatics, elderly) may r eside, work or play, including hospitals and day care centers, within a 10 kilometer radius of the facility;

- Include, f

or particulate matter simulation (i.e., PM 2.5 and PM10 )

, wind

- driven emissions from the coal pile and coal processes (coal crusher, grade rs, etc.) including emissions from open coal railcars that line the western fenceline;

- Include d ownwash characteristics that are determined using actual and future plant and equipment layout, including all additional structures associated with the SO2 control system.

- Show how the maximum impacts from the facility’s emissions of toxic air pollutants compare to each pollutant’s recommended maximum level of exposure.

The draft protocols for these modeling demonstrations should be released for public comment imm ediately. Upon development of final modeling protocol s, results should be published within one month. Potential operational remedies for the facility to meet compliance of NAAQS should include:

- Immediate curtailment of emission limits through reduction in output;

- State and federal enforcement of the curtailed emission limits within a new o perating permit or consent order ;

- Installation of a wind fence around the perimeter of the coal pile (there is no apparent reason why such a simple best manag ement practice has not already been implemented) ;

- Application of a surfactant to the coal pile to diminish wind

- driven emissions.

Until operation al limits for Martin Drake have been determined that comply with all NAAQS, and made enforceable through a perm it, the plant should cease or immediately curtail its operation to approximately 10% to 20% of output ( to date, two independent air quality compliance analyses show that this scale of reduction is necessary to protect public health) . Precedent exists for state interve ntion to protect the public from egregious conditions of air pollution exposure. I n 2005, the Virginia De partment of Environmental Quality, upon being informed of air quality modeling results showing similarly egregious impacts in excess of N AAQS by another aged coal

- fired electrical generating station located in a populated area, issued an order that the facility immediately reduce or shutdown its operation. 14

Potential New Source Review Environmental Liabilities should be Fully Disclosed

CSU may incorrectly assume that the Martin Drake facility has been “grandfathered” 15 for 40+ years from the Clean Air Act program requirements. The Clean Air Act stipulates that owner/operators of major sources [Martin Drake is a major source] undergo imp lementation of control technology and a NAAQS air quality compliance demonstration when their source undergoes a physical modification

– if that physical modification leads to annual emission i ncreases that are “significant.” 16 Major physical components i n a coal

- fired electrical generating station include wall, floor and roof boiler tubes,

14 Robert G. Burnley, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Lisa D. Johnson, President, Mirant Potomac River, LLC, August 19, 2005.
15 “Congress never intended to permanently exempt existing facilities from these requirements...existing plants that have been modified are subject to the Clean Air Act programs... t he purpose of the modification rule is to ensure that control measures are undertaken when they are most effective, at the time of new or modified construction,” Opinion and Order , USA versus Ohio Edison , 2005. See d escription of settlement at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/ohioe dison.html

. 16 “ New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting, ” Draft, October, 1990, at http://www.epa.gov/NSR/ttnnsr01/gen/wkshpman.pdf

.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 7 economizers, super

- heaters, and re

- heaters. In this operating environment, severe thermal cycling, harsh corrosion from exposure to caustic agents, and high velocity impaction from particles and flue gas often

cause these components to fail, degrading plant availability and performance. Conversely, replacement of these components can lead to increased plant heat rat e, reliability and plant utilizations, and consequent ly emission increases that exceed significant levels.

T he 50+ year operation of the Martin Drake facility

, in the absence of any modification or replacement of critical subsystems and parts

, appears to defy the typical coal

- fired power plant’s lifetime of 30 to 40
years. For installations like the pr oposed SO2 control system, associated p hysical modifications and upgrades of ancillary components (like fans) are often necessary to accommodate its operation

– these ancillary modifications often result in increased plant availa bility, output and performance

– increasing other regulated pollutants beyond significance levels. It is critical that all past physical modifications at the Martin Drake facility, and detailed plans for the future modifica tions to accommodate the SO2 control system, be fully disclosed for public review. Usin g these disclosures, in combination with time series of plant output that have are recorded by US EPA, 17 public review can assess if past or future modification s lead to increased annual emissions, and consequently, if they trigger Clean Air Act New Source Review requirements.

A New Source Review settlement in the future, potentially involving additional control technologies and penalties, would represent potential e nvironmental liabilities that the citizens of Colorado S prings should fully understand when considering the long

- term options of this plant.

Summary of Requests

In summary, I respectfully request that CDPHE instruct CSU to immediately :

1) Curtail with in an enforceable order, the hourly output of the Martin Drake facility to between 10% to 20% of its rating; 2) Publish all of the SO2 control vendor’s test and operation al data so that an air quality modeling demonstration of the proposed operational scenario can go forward; 3) Publish all historical data, documents , engineering drawings and specifications that describe every physical modification that h as occurred at the Martin Drake; 4) Publish all documentation, specifications , and engineering drawings of modification s , replacement

s or upgrade s to the existing Martin Drake equipment that are planned to accommodate the new SO2 control system; 5) Designate a n open ftp site where all of the above information can be posted.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Upon your request, I will gladly post all of the AERMOD input and output files of this study to a designated ftp site for your review.

Maureen Barrett, P.E. Principal, Air Expertise Colorado

17 Data posted at www.epa.gov/airmarkets. These q uarterly continuous emission monitoring system d ata can b e reviewed to determine changes in plant output that have occurred and how the changes correlate to plant modifications.Air Expertise Colorado Evergreen, CO

303.670.0515 mbarrett@airexpertisecolorado.com Page | 8 cc:

Colorado Springs City Council (acting as Colorado Springs Utilities Board) allcouncil@springsgov.com

Howard Cantor Acting Regional Administrator US EPA Region 8 R8eisc@epa.gov

Memorial Hospital Central and Memorial Hospital for Children michelle.moy@uchealth.org

Bryce Carter

, Sierra Club Bryce.Carter@sierraclub.org

A n schutz Corporation Owner, Manitou and Pikes Peak Railway info@cograilway.com

El Paso County Board of Health healthinfo@elpasoco.com

Dr. K. Patrick McCaffery, President Pikes Peak Pediatric Society info@pedassoccs.com

Colorado Springs Senior Center info@csseniorcenter.com