f*.c: 

# ED BEFORE

### THE ARKANSAS PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION I L 

### IN 

### THE MATER

### OF ENTERGY 

### 1 ARKANSAS, INCIS REQUEST FOR

## A 1 DECLARATORY 0RDER 

### 1 APPROVING THE ADDITION OF

### THE ) 

### ENVIRONMENTALCONTROLS 

### 1 PROJECT

### AT THE

### WHITE 

### BLUFF 

### 1 STEAM 

### ELECTRIC STATION

### NEAR 1 REDFIELD, ARKANSAS 

### 1 DOCKET NO. 

### 09-0244

RESPONSE 

### OF ENTERGYARKANSAS, INC. TO ORDER NO. 

### V 

### Eniergy Arkansas, 

### Inc. (“EAI” or 

### €he”Company”)submits 

### its Response to 

### Arkansas Public 

### Senrice Commission rAPSC“ or 

### the “Commission”) Order 

### No. 17 

### in this proceeding. Order No, 

### 17, inter 

### alia, directed EA1 to 

### file 

### monthly progress reports 

### on 

### developments related to the Arkansas 

### Department of 

### Environmental 

### Quality 

### (“ADEQ”) and 

### Environmental Protection Agency C‘EPA”) ongoing review 

### ofthe referenced draft: Xtle 

### V 

### air permit and any 

### attendant consequences anticipated 

### related to the APSC’s 

### consideration 

### of EAl’s 

### Petition for a DeclaratoryOrder. Pursuant to Order 

### No. 17, EAl’s 

### first 

### monfhly progress report is due 

### on January 4, 

### 2009. Because 

### of recent 

### developments, EA1 

### is submitting 

### this 

### monthly progress 

### report prior €0

### the January 

### 4 

### deadline in 

### order to 

### keep the Commission and 

### parties to 

### the docket 

### apprised of 

### such developments. 

### EA1 

### intends to 

### submitits 

### next monthly progress

### report priorto or 

### on 

### February 3,201 0, consistent

### with the 

### original 30day

### progress report

### schedule.

### Discussion 

### As the Commission noted 

### in 

### Order 

### No. 17, EPA 

### provided 

### comments to ADEQ regarding the draft air 

### permit 

### for the White 

### Bluff 

### Steam Electric Station (“White 

### Bluff”) on 

### November 

### 25,2009. In 

### its comments 

### on the drafi permit, EPA highlighted a 

### number of concerns with the Arkansas RegionaI 

### Haze State Implementation 

### Plan (“SIP”) regulationsthat 

### €PA requested ADEQ address 

### prior to 

### issuing the 

### final permit. In 

### particular, EPA expressed concern 

### over 

### the emission rates established 

### by the 

### Pollution ControI 

### and Ecology Commission (“PC&E Commission”) Regulation 19, 

### which sets 

### forth Arkansas’ Regional 

### Haze SIP, 

### and incorporated into 

### the 

### draft air permit. 

### Although EPA agreed 

### with EAl’s seIection of polhtion control technology, the comment letter points 

### out that 

### EPA 

### Region 6 

### may 

### not approve the requirements established 

### in Chapter 15 

### of 

### Regulation +l9 

### as Best

### Available Retrofit 

### Technology rBART) 

### and questions 

### the 

### appropriateness of issuing any air permit 

### based 

### on Chapter 15 prior to formal 

### EPA approval of Arkansas’ Regional 

### Haze SIP. 

### See 

### EA1 Exhibit A. EPA’s



### concerns and the 

### uncertainty associated with 

### when EPA 

### will 

### approve the SIP 

### make strict 

### compliance with the October 

### 15, 2013 deadline 

### for installing the White 

### Bluff Environmental Controls Project (the 

### “Project”), as required by 

### Regulation 19, 

### unreasonable 

### and impractical. 

### As a result, 

### EAI, 

### in conjunction 

### with Southwestern Electric 

### Power 

### Company and Arkansas 

### Electric Cooperative 

### Corporation (collectively 

### the"Petitioners"),' 

### filed a Petition for a 

### Variance with 

### the Director 

### of ADEQ on December 28, 2009, requesting a variance from €he October 15, 2013 compliancedate established in Regulation 19, Chapter 15. A 

### copy of the Petition 

### is attached 

### hereto as EA1 Exhibit B. 

### The Petition

### for a 

### Variance is made pursuant

### to 

### Ark. CodeAnn. 

## 5 8-4-31 3. Pursuant 

### to 

### the statute, 

### the Director of 

### ADEQ promptly reviews 

### the Petitioners' request and 

### makes a recommendation 

### to 

### the PC&E Commission as to €he disposition

### of the Petition. 

### Upon consideration of 

### the Director's 

### recommendation, 

### the 

### PC&E Commission may grant a 

### specific variance from a particular requirement of 

### any regulation 

### to any persons or class 

### of persons or an 

### air contamination source 

### if 

### it finds that 

### strict 

### compliance with the regulation 

### is inappropriate because 

### of conditions beyond the control 

### of the 

### person or 

### source seeking 

### the variance or because 

### of special circumstances 

### which would render 

### strict compliance 

### with the regulation unreasonable, unduly burdensome, or impractical due to speciaIconditions? 

### In

### the Petition, 

### EA1 

### and the 

### other 

### co-Petitioners request

### that the Directorof 

### ADEQ recommend to 

### the PC&E Cornmission 

### that the Petitioners be granted a variance 

### from the October 

### 15, 2013 deadline, and instead that 

### the Petitioners be required to 

### comply with 

### the timeline 

### established by the federal Regional 

### Hare Rule, which 

### requires 

### sources to 

### comply as expeditiously as practicable

### but in no event later than 

### five 

### years after 

### EPA 

### approval of 

### the Arkansas Regional 

### Haze 

# ' EAl's co-petitioners are owners andlor operators of the other affected sources listed in Regulation19. See EA1 Exhibit B for more information.

Ark. CodeAnn. 

### 5 84313(a)(l).

-3-SIP.3 This variance from 

### the state regulation would make 

### the Petitioners' 

### compliance deadIine consistentwith federal 

### taw. 

### The next PC&E 

### Commission meeting 

### will be held on January 22, 2010. 

### Pursuantto 

### the general practice before the PC&E 

### Commission 

### that submittalsfor 

### the next 

### scheduled meeting be 

### filed two 

### weeks 

### before the meeting, 

### the Director 

### of ADEQ 

### is expected 

### to make her recommendation to the 

### PC&E Commission by 

### January 8, 

### 2010. 

### Petitioners anticipate that the PC&E Commission 

### wiIl consider 

### the variance Petition at the January 22, 2010 meeting. 

### If EA1 is granted the 

### requested variance 

### from the 

### October 15, 2013 deadline, 

### the Company is 

### prepared to suspend all 

### work 

### on the 

### White Bluff Environmental Controls 

### Project at 

### least until 

### EPA approves

### the current

### Arkansas Regional 

### Haze SIP or a revision thereto so that€he Companywill 

### have 

### certainty regarding

### the SIP 

### requirements. In preparation for suspending all 

### work 

### on the project, 

### the Company will suspend delivery under 

### its contract 

### with Atstom-Zachry, the 

### vendor selected 

### to design 

### and 

### install 

### the flue gas desulfurizationtechnology, effective 

### December31

### , 2009. Suspending the Atstom-Zachry contract at

### this time will 

### fix 

### the cancellation cost at 

### the December

### value of $9.9 million pursuant to €heterms 

### of the contract. 

### During the time 

### ofsuspension, the Company will 

### pay a standby 

### fee to retain key 

### project 

### members of the 

### Alstom-Zachry project 

### team until 

### the Company 

### obtains certainty 

### from the PC&E Commission that 

### the variance 

### will be 

### granted and 

### the Company 

### will no longer be 

### required to 

### meet the October 

### 15, 2013 compliance date. 

### EA1can release

### thisteam 

### with 5 days noticeto Alstom-Zachry.

See42 U.S.C. Q§ 7491 (b)(2)(A), (g)(Z); 40 C.F.R. pt 51 AppendixY (Part

### V).

-4-

### If 

### the 

### suspension is lifted and work is resumed on 

### the Project, AlstomZachry 

### will be entitled to a cost 

### and schedule 

### adjustment on 

### the 

### entire contract. 

### The magnitude 

### of the cost and schedule adjustment 

### will depend 

### on a number of 

### variables, including the 

### duration 

### of the suspension and changes 

### in commodity and 

### equipment prices 

### during the suspension 

### period. The contract allows suspension 

### for up 

### to 180 days at which 

### point, Alstom-Zachry may cancel 

### the contract. 

### In addition, all: Project procurement activity related to Balance 

### of 

### Plant, General Works, 

### and NOx controls, 

### which are currently out for bid or scheduled to begin 

### the bid process 

### in January 2010 have been suspended indefinitely. The Owner's Engineer for 

### the Project, Sargent and 

### Lundy, wit1 complete in-progress 

### work and 

### document

### fulI

### stop engineering 

### packages

### for facilitation 

### of future

### work. As stated 

### earlier, EPA's concerns 

### expressed 

### over the SIP 

### and 

### the 

### associated uncertainty as to 

### when EPA 

### will 

### approve a 

### SIP 

### for Arkansas has 

### made strict 

### compliance 

### with the October 15, 2013 deadline for installing 

### the 

### White Bluff Environmental Controls 

### Project unreasonable 

### and impractical. Given this uncertainty 

### over the timing 

### ofthe Project, 

### the Company 

### has filed concurrent 

### with this report a 

### Notice of 

### Withdrawal of 

### its 

### Notice of Filing 

### an Interim Rate Schedule, pursuant to 

### Act 310 

### of 1981 as amended4, 

### in Docket 

### No. 09-059-U. 

### As described 

## in the Notice 

### of Withdrawal, 

### the Company 

### will 

### refund 

### the Act 

### 310 collections received to 

### date 

### pursuant to 

### the terms 

### of Rate Schedule 

### No. 51,

EA1 filed 

### its Notice of Filing on June 26, 2009. 

### Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 

### 5 234-504, the surcharge became effective immediately for all retail customerswith the first billing cycle of July 2009. 4

### Government Mandated Expenditure Surcharge 

### Rider ("Rider GMES). The 

### Company will address cost recovery 

### issues at 

### such time as more certainty 

### is achieved regardingthe disposition of €heProject. As explained previously, 

### €AI intends to 

### submit its January progress report on or 

### before 

### February 3, 

### 2010 to 

### update 

### the Commission and parties 

### to 

### the proceeding 

### as to 

### the outcome 

### of the PC&E Commission meeting 

### and 

### the attendant consequences 

### related to 

### the APSC's 

### consideration of EAl's 

### Petitionfor 

### Declaratory Order. 

### Respectfully submitted, 

### ENTERGYARKANSAS, INC.

Laura 

### Landreaux 

### Entergy Senrice, Inc. 

### P.O. 

### Box 551 

### Little Rock, 

### AR 

### 72203 Telephone: (501) 

### 377-5876 Scott

### Trotter 

### PERKINS &TROTTER, 

### PLLC 

### One Information

### Way, Suite 20 Little 

### Rock, AR 

### 72202 Telephone: 

### (501)

### 603-9000 N.M. Norton 

### Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 

### 200

## W. CapitolAvenue, 

### Suite 

### 2200 Little 

### Rock,AR 

### 72201 (501) 

### 371-0808 ATTORNEYS FOR 

### ENTERGYARKANSAS, 

### INC.

-6-CERTIFICATEOF 

### SERVICE 

### I, Laura Landreaux, do hereby 

### certify that a copy of 

### the foregoing 

### has 

### been served 

### by US.

### Mail postage

### prepaid this 

### 28fh day of December,2009, to 

### alt 

### patties 

### of record.BEFORETHE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION



### IN THE MATTER OF 

### ENTERGY 

## 1 ARKANSAS, INC.’S 

### REQUEST FOR 

### A DECLARATORY 

### ORDER ) APPROVING THE 

### ADDITION 

### OFTHE ENVIRONMENTALCONTROLS 

## 1 PROJECTAT THE 

### WHITE BLUFF 

## 1 STEAM 

### ELECTRIC STATION NEAR ) REDFIELD, ARKANSAS 

## 1 ) )

EA1 EXHIBITA

EPA 

### LElTER DOCKET NO. 09-024-U€AI ExhibitA Page 1 of4 Docket NO.09-024-U UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY REGION 6 im ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733



### Mr.Tom Rheaurnc Permits Branch Manager Air Division Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality 

### Post OfficeBox 891 3 Little

### Rock.

### AR 72219-8913 

### RE: Title V/Preventionof SignificantDeterioration (PSD) Permit 

### for Entergy Arkansas-White Bluff Station Permit Number 0263-AOP-R7, AFIN: 

### 35-001 

### IO Dear Mr.Rheaurne: We have completed review 

### ofthe drafl title V permit (a mergcd title V 

### and New Source Review permit under the State’s rules)

### for ?heEntergy -4rkansas

## -White Bluff Station, located at Redfield, Jefferson County, Arkansas. We received it in our office on October 12,2009. 

### Our coniments identify a 

### number ofareas ofconcern 

### that we request that you address

### priorto issuance ofthe final perniit. 

### In addition to our conventional permit comments, we are including 

### our feedback on 

### those aspects ofthe pennit that arc related to the Best Available RetrofitTechnoIogy 

### (BART) requirements 

### ofthe

### regional hazerule under 40 Code ofFederal 

### Regulations (CFR) 5 1.308. Specifically, forUnits 1 

### and 2, BART for sulhr dioxide (SQ2) control was determined to 

### bethe retrofit of a spray dryer absorbcr (SDA)/fabrk 

### filterdry flue gas desulfurization system. WhiIe we agree this technology is BART 

### for these two units, we do no1believe 

### the emissionrate 

### of 0.15 pounds 

### (1bs)lrnillionsBritish thermal units (MMBtu 1is 

### BART. We have seen a number 

### ofsimilar facilitiesthat burn western sub-bituminous coals, with 

### emission rates much lowerthan this value, following the 

### instalkhn ofscrubbers. 

### In fact, we 

### have 

### seen instancesinwhich similar 

### facilitieshave achieved actual 

### emissionsrates approachingone third 

### this value. 

### For instance on Unit 1, using the 2005 

### annual SO2 emissionsrate of 17,394.1 

### tons per year, the heatinput of€AI ExhibitA Page 2 of 4 DocketNO.09-0244

52.698,342 MhIBhl, and the slatedcontrol efficiency 

### for this control techiioIogy

### of 92%', an emissionsrate ofO.053 IbfilMBtu results. tVMethis is atheoretical 

### maximum level ofcontrol, itdoes indicate a 

### much lower emission

### rate is possible. Because 

### ofthis, we do 

### not feel 

### an SO2 

### emission limit 

### of0.15 IbsMMBtu has been 

### shown

### by the ArIransas Department of Environmental Quality 

### (ADEQ) to 

### be BART. As Uie

### US. Environmentd Protection Agency 

### (EPA) has noted 

### in past comments 

### onArkansas' Regional Haze State Implementation

### Plan (SIP), we do

### not believe

### ADEQ has properly conducted its BART 

### analyses,inciuding a five 

### factor

### analysis for 

### all its 

### BART sources,including the 

### Entergy White Bluff faciIity,as requiredunder 40 

### CFR 51.308. Bad 

### this analysisbeen performed.we feel that a more slrhgcntcontrol level would havebeen 

### likely shown to be 

### BART. In previous

### comments to 

### ADEQ on 

### its regional 

### haze SIP,wc identified 

### an issue with the 

### auxiliaryboiler, SN-05, which Entergy states is used in 

### the startup of

### Units 1and 2. 

### We noted 

### that this 

### unit waspermitted for 6760hours

### ofoperation. 

### *We stated

### that although Entergyhashistoricallyemployed

### this unit 

### far less 

### than that, the potential for greater use exits due to thepermit limit. Therefore, Entergyshould eitherinclude SN-05 

### in the BART 

### analysis assuming 8760 

### hours (hrs)/year(yr) ofoperation, or 

### revise its permit toreflect this unit's historical 

### function. 

### Inresponse,

### ADEQ statedthat Entergy had since acceptcdan operation limit of4360hours annually. As we stated 

### in our cornmenis to the

### ADEQ draft regional

### haze SIP,since Entergy feelsit must retain this level ofopcralional flexibility 

### for SN-05, then it should perform its 

### BART analysis

### on this basis, as this still represents one

### half a yearofcontinuous operations. It appears that

### ADEQ is attemptingto implementthe

### BART requirements

### ofits regional haze SIP prior IOan EPA proposed action 

### onthe 

### SIP. We encouragcADEQ lo work with EPA to address our concerns prior to draftingthe 

### final proposedpcrmit 

### since not doing so 

### may result 

### in EPA reopening thepermit and more stringentemission limits for thestationary

### sourceupon 

### EPA's final action on the regional haze 

### SIP. 

### In addition, we understand that commentsarebeing submittcd to 

### ADEQ by othcrFcderal agencies; therefore, we request that 

### ADEQ provide a

### final proposedpermit to EPA for a 45-day review period prior to issuing the final permit. We look fonsard to workingwith 

### ADEQ to resolvethe issues identified 

### in our commentsand to ensure that the proposed permit is consistent 

### with the requirements

### of the kkansas

### Regulations and 

### addresses 

### EPA's BART concerns. Please send 

### your



# ' Tnblc 2-1 and pagc 3-3, from"BART Analysis for thc White Muff SteamElectric Station, 132006.''EA1 ExhibitA Page 3 of 4 DocketNO. 09-0244

responseelectronicdlythroughemail for 

### recordkeepingpurposes. If you

### have any 

### questions,please contact

### me at (214) 665-7250 

### or

### Ah Chmgofmy staffat (214) 665-7541. Thank you for

### your cooperation. 

### Sincerelyyours, 

# j&&%e-- JeffRobinson Chief Air Permits Section EnclosureEA[ ExhibitA Docket No.09-024-U Page4 of4



### ENCLOSURE Statement ofBasis 

### Item 3: Page 

### 6of26, Section 12, Emission Factor for SN-01 and SN-02: it states, “Lead: 2.k-5IbMiMBtu”. Please clarify“2.6e-5 Ib/MMBtu”. Their three formats were used 

### in pcrniitdocuments 

### such as “4.5 1 

### x 1

### OJ”and, “2.2Ge-4” in the Statement

### ofBasis and 

### “2.6E-5” (page 20, Draft Permit). For the sakeofavoidingconfusion,please minimize the 

### formats 

### used in 

### the permit documents. Draft Permit 

## -Pre

## - BART Scenario Itcm 5: Pages 87,89 

### and 90,EMISSION 

### SUMMARY: please spell out 

### the full 

### name of “POM” either in 

### its first appearance. Draft Permit 

## -Post 

### BART Scenario Item 7: Page 37, Spccik ConditionsNumbers 4 & 5: Best AvailableControl Technology 

### (BACT) was not clearlyspecified for startup and shutdownemissions 

### from PC boilers. The draft permit provisionsregarding startup, shutdown,maintenance and malfunction are vaguc, and should be clarified. 

### PSD 

### emission sources

### must comply with BACT limits at 

### all 

### times regardlessof start-up, shutdown 

### and malfunction 

### (SSM) opcrations. Themonitoring requirements are inadequate 

### tu assurecompliance ofBACT limits at 

### particular times when violations are 

### most likely to occur, such as during 

### SSM operztions. Item8: Pagc 33, SpccificCondition Number 27: il states, “The permittee 

### shalI test SN-01 and SN-02 

### for PM23 while operatingunder Scenario I: The PM2.5test shall be performed using an approved method

### by the Department to demonstratecompliance with Specific Condition 25. These tests shall be conducted in accordance with Plantwide 

### ConditionNumber 3, 

### This testing

### shall 

### beconducted within 180 days of

### permit issuance and every five years thereafter.”

a. 

### This conditionappearsto imply that Entergy

### will be required to request approval 

### ofthe test method it inlends 

### to utilize forPM2.5 compliancedemonstration. Please verify. 

### If this is

### the case, please provide a condition requiring submittals 

### of the requested method to

### ADEQ for approval. in addition,please 

### cxplain why 

### ADEQbelieves the testing frequencyrequirementsare adequateto demonstrate onsaing or continuous compliance,or are there otherparametric monitoring requirenicntsthat 

### will 

### be able to demonstrate

### compliance.BEFORE

### THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

IN

### THE MAlTER OF ENTERGY ) ARKANSAS, INC.'S REQUEST FOR A ) 

### DECLARATORY ORDER 

## 1 APPROVINGTHE ADDITION OFTHE ) 

### ENVIRONMENTALCONTROLS 

## 1 PROJECTAT THE WHITE BLUFF 

## 1 STEAM ELECTRICSTATION 

### NEAR ) REDFIELD,ARKANSAS 

## 1 DOCKET 

### NO. 09-024-U

EA1 EXHlBlT 6
VARIANCE PETITIONEA1 Exhibit B Docket No. 09-024-U Page 1of 16 BEFORE 

### THE ARKANSAS 

### POLLWTION CONTROL

### AND ECOLOGY 

### COMMISSION 

### IN THE MATTER 

### OF A 

### PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM REGULATION DOCKET 

### NO. PURSUANT 

### TO ARK. CODE 

### ANN.

## 5 8-4-313 

### 1 1

PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM REGULATION 

### Pursuant to 

### Arkansas 

### Code Annotated § 

### 8-4-313, comes 

### now Entergy 

### Arkansas, 

### Inc. (“EAI”), 

### Southwestern Electric 

### Power Company, 

### Inc. (“SWEPCO”) 

### , and 

### Arkansas Electric 

### Cooperative Corporation 

### (“AECC”), (collectiveIy,“Petitioners”),before the 

### Director 

### of the 

### Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

### (“ADEQ”), and 

### for their 

### Petition for Variance 

### from Regulation state: Introduction. 

### 1. 

### The Arkansas PoIlution Control and Ecology 

### Commission (“Commission”) 

### adopted Regulation 

### No. 19, Chapter 

### 15, Regulations 

### of the Arkansas 

### Plan of Implementation 

### for Air 

### Pollution Control, to satisfy 

### certain requirements of the 

### federal Clean Air 

### Act, 

### 42 U.S.C. 

## 55 7401 et seq., 

### and associated federal regdations promulgated 

### by the Environmental Protection Agency 

### (“EPA”) to address 

### regional haze 

### in aI1 156 

### mandatory Class 

### I national parks and 

### wilderness areas. 

### These 

### regulations require affected states to 

### establish, among 

### other things, 

### emission limits 

### representing best 

### available retrofit 

### technology (“BART) 

### for certain existing 

### sources that are 

### reasonabIy

1EA1 ExhibitB DocketNo.09-0244 Page 2 of 16 

### anticipated to 

### contribute to visibility 

### impairment 

### in any Class 

### I Federd 

### Area (“sources subject-to-BART”). 2. 

### Under EPA’s 

### regulations, Arkansas is required to 

### oversee compliance with 

### an EPA-approved state implementation plan 

### (WPn). 

### By regulation, such plan must 

### include, 

### among other 

### things,

### an emission limitation 

### representing 

### BART (or an alternative 

### limit, 

### such as 

### an operational limit) and 

### a BART 

### compIiance schedule 

### for each source subject-to-BART within the state. 40 CFR 

## 5 51.308Ie). ReguIation 

### No. 19, 

### Chapter 15 was intended to satisfy these 

### requirements 

### by identifying and prescribing 

### BART obligations 

### for 

### each

source subject-to-BART. 3. The Petitioners 

### are owners and 

### / or 

### operators of 

### sources subject

### to-BART identified in 

### ReguIation No. 19.1504. 4. 

### After the filing of 

### a petition for variance with the 

### Director 

### of 

### ADEQ, and upon consideration 

### of 

### her recommendation, the 

### Commission may 

### grant specific variances from the 

### particular requirements 

### of any regulation to 

### any persons 

### or class of 

### persons 

### or air contamination 

### source 

### if it finds that 

### strict 

### compliance with 

### the regulation is 

### inappropriate 

### because 

### of conditions beyond the 

### control of 

### the 

### person granted 

### the variance or because of 

### special circumstances which would 

### render strict 

### cornplhce 

### with the 

### regulation unreasonable, 

### unduly burdensome, 

### or impractical 

### due to special conditions. Ark. Code Ann. 

## 5 8-4-313(a)( 1).

2EA1 Exhibit

### B Docket No. 09-024-U Page 3 of 16 

### 5. A 

### recent 

### comment letter 

### from 

### EPA Region 6 

### to ADEQ regarding 

### BART limits to be imposed in 

### a permit 

### for EAI’s White Bluff 

### facility 

### (oneof the 

### Arkansas sources 

### subject-to-BART)l points 

### out that EPA 

### Region 6 

### may 

### not approve 

### the requirements established 

### in Chapter 15 

### of Regulation 

### 19 

### as 

### BART and 

### questions the appropriateness 

### of issuing 

### any air permit 

### based on Chapter 15 

### prior to formal EPA 

### approval of Arkansas’ 

### Regional 

### Haze SIP. 

### This development makes strict 

### compliance with 

### the deadline 

### for implementation of 

### BART in 

### Regulation 

### No. 19.1504(B), October 

### 15, 2013, 

### inappropriate, unreasonable, unduly 

### burdensome, 

### and impractical. See 

### Letter of 

### Jeff Robinson, Chief 

### of Air 

### Permits Section, EPA 

### Region 

### 6,dated 

### November 25, 2009 (Exhibit A, hereto). 

### The Petitioners request 

### that the Director recommend to the 

### Commission (and 

### the Commission 

### so find) 

### that the sources subject-toBART 

### be granted a variance from the October 

### 15, 2013, deadline imposed by 

### ReguIation 

### 19.1504(B),and, 

### instead, that the 

### sources subject-to-BART be required 

### to comply with 

### BART 

### on the timeline established by the 

### federal Regional 

### Haze Rule: as 

### expeditiously 

### as practicable but 

### in 

### no event later than five (5) years 

### after 

### EPA approval of the 

### Arkansas Regional 

### Haze 

### SIP. This 

### variance from the 

### regulation would 

### make the compliance deadline 

### for 

### Arkansas’sources subject-to-BART

### consistent with federal 

### law.

I EM is the operator and majority owner of theWhite Blufffacility with a 57 percent share. The other owners and their respective shares arc: AECC (35%), the City of Jonesboro (5percent), the City of Conway (2 percent),and the City of West Memphis (1percent). 3EA1 Exhibit 8 Docket No. 09-0244 Page4 of 16 Federal Regulatory Background 6. 

### On June 

### 15, 2005,EPA 

### issued amendments to the 

### 1999 Regional 

### Haze 

### Rule, 

### known as the Clean Air Visibility 

### Rule. 

### 70 Fed. 

### Reg. 39104 (July 

### 6, 2005). 

### The Regional 

### Haze Rule is designed to 

### protect federd Class I areas 

### from visibility 

### impairments caused 

### by air 

### pollution 

### or smog. 

### The Regional 

### Haze Rule applies 

### to 26 

### industrial sectors that 

### are major 

### sources of 

### sulfur dioxide 

### ('S02'), nitrogen oxide, 

### and traditional particulate 

### emissions and that 

### were 

### in existence

or 

### under construction 

### between 

### 1962 and 1977.42 

### U.S.C.

## 5 7491(b)(2)(A). 

### 7. 

### The Regional 

### Haze Rule requires affected states, including Arkansas,to develop individual programs to 

### assure 

### reasonable progress toward 

### meeting the 

### national goal of elimination 

### of 

### visibility impairment 

### in mandatory Class I federal areas. 

### 40 CFR § 51.300. 

### Each state was required to submit a SIP 

### under the Regional 

### Haze Rule 

### no later 

### than December 17,2007. 

### 40 CFR § 

### 51.308(b). 

### Most states, 

### however, have 

### missed 

### this deadline 

### (only 

### 13 states 

### have submitted SIPS to 

### EPA), and 

### none of these 

### have 

### been approved 

### by EPA. Arkansas submitted its Regional 

### Haze 

### SIP to EPA Region 6 

### on September Id, 2008; to date, EPA 

### Region 6 has neither approved 

### nor disapproved the proposed 

### SIP. Upon 

### submission 

### by the state, 

### EPA provides review and 

### comment on the 

### SIP and 

### ultimately either approves the 

### SIP as 

### submitted 

### or 

### as modified by EPA, 

### or 

### rejects the 

### SIP and 

### provides a 

### Federal Implementation Plan 

### ("FIP") in its place, 

### or some combination 

### thereof.

4EA1 Exhibit B DocketNo.09-0244 Page 5 of 16

8. 

### The Regional 

### Haze Rule requires that each identified 

### source subject-to-BART install 

### and operate 

### BART as 

### expeditiously as practicable, 

### but 

### in no event 

### Iater than five 

### (5) years after EPA’s 

### approval 

### of 

### Arkansas’Regional Haze SIP. 40 CFR 

## 5 51.308(e)(l)(iv). The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP 

### 9. In 2007, 

### ADEQ requested that the Commission initiate 

### a rulemaking to 

### amend Regulation 

### No. 19 to 

### incorporate the federal Regional 

### Haze RuIe’s 

### BART requirements. That 

### process culminated in 

### adoption 

### by the Commission 

### of Regulation 

### No. 19, 

### Chapter 

### 15 entitled 

### “Regional 

### Haze.” 10. Regulation 

### No. 19.1504 lists the folIowing 

### as sources subject-to

### BART: a) AECC’s 

### Carl 

### E. BaiIey Generating Station unit SN-0 1; 

### b) AECC’s 

### John 

### L. McCIellan 

### Generating Station

### unit SN-01; c) 

### Domtar’s Ashdown Mill units SN-03 

### and SN-05; d) EAX’s 

### Lake Catherine Plant unit SN-03; 

### e) EAI’s 

### White Bluff 

### Plant units SN-01, SN-02 and SN-05; 

### and f) SWEPCO’s Flint 

### Creek Plant 

### unit SN-01. 

### I 1. Under 

### Regulation 

### No. 19.1505, 

### each source subject-to-BART 

### is required to comply with 

### BART by satisfying stated 

### emission hits

### or utilizing 

### certain fuels. 

### The requirements of Regulation 

### No. 19.1505 for 

### each source subject-to-BART were 

### presumed to 

### be sufficiently stringent as to 

### satisfy the 

### federal 

### BART requirement. See 

### 70 Fed. 

### Reg. 

### 39131 (July 6, 2005). 

### For

5EA1 Exhibit B Docket No. 09-0244 Page 6 of 16 example, 

### SWEPCO’s Flint 

### Creek unit SN-01 

### and EAI’s 

### White 

### Bluff units SN-01 and SN-02 

### must 

### each comply with 

### BART by meeting, among other requirements, an emission limit 

### of 0.15 

### pounds SO2 

### per miUion 

### Btu of 

### heat input (0.15 lb/MMBtu) 

### on a 

### 30-day rolling 

### average. AECC’s 

### John L. McClellan 

### Generating Station 

### unit SN-01, for 

### example, must 

### comply with 

### BART by 

### burning fuel 

### oil that 

### has a 

### lower 

### maximum sulfur content 

### by weight 

### than 

### in its 

### current permit. 12. 

### Regulation 

### No. 19.1504(B) requires 

### each source subject-to-BART

### to install 

### and operate BART 

### as expeditiously 

### as 

### practicable, 

### but in 

### no event later 

### than six 

### (6) years after 

### the effective date of the 

### regulation or five 

### (5) years after 

### EPA approval 

### of the 

### Arkansas Regional 

### Haze SIP, whichever 

### comes first. 13. 

### Regulation 

### No. 19 

### became effective 

### on 

### October 15, 2007 (ten 

### (10) days after it was 

### adopted and filed 

### with the 

### Arkansas Secretary of State, 

### the State 

### Library 

### and the 

### Bureau of Legislative 

### Research). APC&EC 

### Reg. 19.601. 

### Thus,the 

### sources subject-to-BART are 

### required to 

### install and operate 

### BART as expeditiously 

### as practicable or by October 

### 15, 2013, 

### which 

### is the 

### earlier of the dates 

### in Regulation 

### 19.1504(B). 14. 

### The federal regulation on 

### which Regulation 

### No. 19 is based, 

### however, recognized the 

### importance of 

### EPA approval of the state reguIation (the 

### SIP) 

### - which is sometimes 

### a very 

### lengthy process 

## - and 

### required BART implementation 

### no later than five 

### (5) years after EPA’s approval 

### of the state’s

6€AI Exhibit 8 DocketNo.09-0244 Page 7 of 16 reguIations. Since EPA 

### has 

### not yet approved the BART 

### component of Regulation 

### No. 19, this five-year 

### period has 

### not yet 

### begun.2 15. 

### By providing 

### an earlier deadline for 

### each source subject-to-BART, the 

### Commission adopted 

### a deadline 

### which 

### is more stringent than that 

### required by federal regulation. 

### See 40 

### C.F.R. 

### 8 5

### 1.308(e)( l)(iv). EPA's Comments 

### on the 

### Draft Air 

### Permit for White Bluff 16. 

### To comply 

### with the 

### October 15, 

### 2013,deadline 

### in Regulation 

### No. 

### 19.1504(B), the 

### sources subject-to-BART 

### must immediateIy undertake

measures which are 

### necessary for 

### the procurement of materials, 

### financing 

### and mandatory regulatory permits. 

### For 

### most of the 

### sources subject-to-BART, installation 

### and operation of 

### BART will necessitate 

### substantial capitd expenditures 

### and contractual obligations. 

### Moreover, the 

### purchase and installation of 

### the control equipment 

### required 

### to comply with 

### BART represents



### a major undertaking, requiring significant 

### funding, long-term planning and 

### engineering, 

### and financid commitments well in advance 

### of implementation. 17. 

### To wit, in 

### order to 

### comply with 

### the 

### requirements of Regulation 

### No. 19 

### in advance 

### of the October 15, 

### 2013,deadline, EA1 submitted 

### an application 

### for an 

### air permit modification 

### for its White 

### Bluff facility 

### on 

### February 4, 2009,

~ ~ 3 On November 10, 2009,EPA entered a proposed consent decree that will require the agency to approve the SIPs of, or issue a FIP for, the states of New Mexico and Oklahoma by May IO, 201 1. 74 Fed. Rcg. 64076 (December 7, 2009). Thus,under federal requirements, the federal deadline for those states' implementation of BART could be as late as 2016. As a practical matter, the lodging of the consent decree also indicates that the proposed SIPs for New Mexico and Oklahoma will be a higher priority for review by EPA Region 6 than the proposed Arkansas SIP. Arkansas is in EPA Region 6. These recent developments regarding submission of other states' SIPs to EPA create a substantial uncertainty regarding thetimeline for EPA's final action on theArkansas Regional Haze SIP. 7EA[ Exhibit B DocketNo.09-0244 Page 8of 16 

### for the installation 

### of the 

### necessary pollution control equipment. 

### The total cost of the White Bluff project 

### currently is estimated 

### to be $780 million. See generally, 

### Docket 

### No. 09-024-U of the 

### Arkansas Public Service 

### Commission. 18. 

### On October 12, 2009, 

### ADEQ issued a 

### draft operating 

### air permit 

### for the 

### requested modifcation at the

### White Bluff facility. The draft 

### permit 

### outlined the requirements 

### for EA1 to install and operate 

### BART controls and includes the emission limitations 

### prescribed by 

### Regulation 

### No. 19. 19. 

### On November 25,2009, EPA Region 6 

### provided 

### comments to ADEQ

on 

### the draft permit. 

### EPA’s 

### comments identified 

### a numberof areas 

### of concern that EPA 

### requested ADEQ 

### address prior to 

### issuance 

### of the final 

### permit. SpecificalIy, EPA stated, It appears that 

### ADEQ is attempting to implement the 

### BART requirements 

### of its regional 

### haze SIP prior to 

### an EPA proposed action 

### on the SIP. Exhibit 

### I, page 

### 2. EPA also 

### expressed that it 

### does not 

### believe that 

### the presumptive 

### BART SO2 

### emission rate 

### contained in Regulation 

### 19.1505 (0.15 Ib/MMBtu) actually represents BART and stated that 

### ADEQ should work 

### with EPA to 

### resolve such 

### concerns prior 

### to drafting the 

### final 

### air permit. Otherwise, 

### EPA notes, 

### the permittee 

### is at risk that upon 

### EPA’s 

### final action 

### on Arkansas’ Regional 

### Haze 

### SIP,EPA could 

### reopen 

### any permits 

### issued prior to that the for the 

### sources subject-to-BART and apply 

### more stringent emission limits and 

### requirements. Id. 20. 

### The EPA’s 

### comments 

### on the White Bluff draft 

### air permit call into question the BART 

### requirements in ReguIation 

### No. 19.1505, and 

### place a 8EA[ Exhibit B Docket No. 09-0244 Page 9 of 16 

### serious uncertainty 

### upon the 

### Petitioners’ ability to 

### reIy 

### on Regulation 19, Chapter 15 in designing 

### and impkmenting the substantial projects 

### necessary 

### to 

### meet their 

### BART obligations. Petition 

### for Variance 2 1. Under 

### the 

### Arkansas 

### Water 

### and Air 

### Pollution Control 

### Act, a 

### person seeking a variance 

### from the 

### particular 

### requirements 

### of any rule, regulation 

### or general order must 

### file 

### a petition 

### with the Director 

### of the

### ADEQ,who 

### will make

a recommendation to the 

### Commission regarding the same. Ark. Code Ann. 

## 5 8- 4-313. 22. 

### The Commission 

### may grant 

### a variance to 

### specifrc 

### persons, class of 

### persons or air contamination 

### source if it fmds 

### that strict 

### compliance with the 

### rule, regulation 

### or general 

### order is 

### inappropriate 

### because of conditions beyond the 

### control of the person 

### granted the 

### variance or because of special circumstances 

### which would render strict 

### compliance 

### unreasonable, 

### unduly burdensome, 

### or impractical due 

### to special 

### physical conditions, 

### or for other



### reasons. 

### Ark. Code Ann. 

## 5 8-4-313(a)(1). 23. Strict compliance 

### by the 

### Petitioners with the 

### October 15, 

### 2013, deadline 

### in Regulation 

### No. 19.1504(B) is inappropriate. Both ADEQ and 

### the Arkansas 

### sources subject-to-BART 

### have worked 

### diligently to 

### comply with both the applicable 

### federal and 

### Arkansas requirements.3 Regardless, EPA 

### has

For example, the owners of the White Bluff facility have to date spent over $10 million planning for and implementingtheir BART obligations. Moreover, ADEQ issued a draft permit for the White Bluff facility in a timely fashion to allow for constructionof equipment neccssary to meet the facility’sBART obligations. 9EA1 Exhibit 8 DocketNo.09-0244 Page 10 of 16 

### expressed significant 

### concerns with 

### Arkansas’ proposed 

### Regional Haze 

### SIP and the presumptive 

### requirements contained in 

### Regulation 19.1505. Only 

### upon EPA’s final 

### action on 

### Arkansas’Regional 

### Haze SIP, the heline 

### of which is 

### uncertain, will 

### the 

### BART requirements 

### for 

### Arkansas’sources 

### subject-to-BART be definitive. 

### Until such he,any 

### permits sought and issued to satisfy Chapter 

### 15 of Regulation 

### 19 could 

### be reopened 

### by EPA, 

### and 

### more stringent emission controls, limits 

### or other requirements 

### ultimately compelled by 

### EPA. The 

### timing of 

### EPA’s review 

### of the 

### Arkansas’ proposed Regional 

### Haze SIP and the outcome 

### of that review 

### are beyond 

### the control 

### of the Petitioners. 

### Therefore, the 

### Petitioners urge 

### that the 

### sources subject-to-BART be granted relief from the 20 13 compliance deadline 

### in Regulation 

### 19.1504(B), and instead be required to comply with the 

### compliance deadline 

### consistent with federal 

### law:

as 

### expeditiously as 

### practicable, 

### but 

### in 

### no event later than five 

### (5) years 

### after 

### EPA approval 

### of the 

### Arkansas Regional 

### Haze SIP.4 

### 24. Furthermore, in light 

### of the 

### uncertainw 

### surrounding EPA’s 

### final action on the 

### Arkansas Regional 

### Haze 

### SIP,it 

### is unreasonable and 

### impractical,

as well as not 

### in the public interest, 

### to require Petitioners to expend the capital 

### which 

### will 

### be 

### necessary to comply 

### with the October 

### 15, 2013, deadline 

### for installation 

### and operation 

### of 

### BART requirements prior to EPA’s final action 

### on Arkansas’Regional Haze 

### SIP. 

### * Petitioners respectfully note that this is not a request for relief that is open-ended or unlimited in time. The compliance date will be required at a date certain after EPA’s approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. 10EA1 Exhibit B Docket No. 09-024-U Page I1 of 16 

### WHEREFORE, pursuant to 

### Arkansas Code Annotated 

## 5 8-4-313, Petitioners respectfully request that the Director 

### make to the 

### Commission, 

### and that the 

### Commission 

### accept, her 

### recommendation that Petitioners’ 

### variance from 

### Regulation 

### No. 19.1504(B) be granted and the sources 

### subject-to-BARTbe 

### required 

### to install and 

### operate 

### BART as 

### expeditiously as 

### practicable but 

### in no event later 

### than five 

### (5) years 

### after EPA 

### approval of the

### Arkansas Regional Haze 

### SIP.



### Dated: December 

### 28,2009 Respectfully Submitted,

Kelly 

### M.McQueen Perkins & 

### Trotter, PLLC P.O. 

### Box 

### 251618 101 

### Morgan 

### Keegan Drive, Suite A 

### Little 

### Rock,Arkansas 72202 (50 I)

### 603-9000 

### Fax: (501) 

### 603-0556 kmcquee~perkinstrotter.com 

### Walter Wright Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & 

### Woodyard 

### 425

### W Capitol Ave # 1800 Little 

### Rock,AR 72201 

### (50 I) 688-8839 

### Fax: (501) 688-8807 wwri~h~mitcheUwilliams.com

11EA1 Exhibit 6 DocketNo.09-0244 Page 12 of 16 

### Of Counsel: Chuck 

### D. Barlow, 

### Esq. Assistant 

### General Counsel - 

### Environmental Entergy Services, Inc. 

### 308 

### E. Pearl Street 

### Jackson, Mississippi 

### 39201 cbarlow@enterw.com (60

### 1)969-2542



### Janet

### J. Henry, 

### Esq. 

### American Electric 

### Power 

### Service Corp. 

### 1

### Riverside 

### Plaza Columbus, 

### OH 43215 

### (614) 716-1612 

### Fa: (614) 716-1687 iihenrvRaep.corn Robert M. 

### Lyford Senior

### Vice President and General 

### Counsel 

### Arkansas Electric 

### Cooperative Corp. P.O. 

### Box 194208 1 

### Cooperative

### Way Little 

### Rock, AR 

### 72219 blv€ord@aecc. corn 

### Stephen P. Williams 

### Senior Staff

### Attorney 

### Arkansas Electric 

### Cooperative Corp. P.O. Box 

### 194208 

### 1 Cooperative

### Way Little 

### Rock, AR 

### 72219 

### swiliam@aecc. corn Attorneys 

### for

### Petitioners

12EA1 Exhibit B Docket

### No.09-0244 Page 13 of 16 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY REGION B 1445 ROSSAVENUE. SUITE 1200 DALLAS. TX 75202-2733

Mr.

### Torn Rheaume PermitsBranch Manqer Air Division Arkansas Dcpamnent of

Environmental Quality Post 

### Office Box 

### 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-891 3 

### RE: Titlc V/PrevcntionofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)Permit for Entergy hkansas-WhiteBluffStation Permit Number 0263-AOP-R7, AFlhT: 35-00 1

### IO Dear 

### Mr. Rheame: We have completed 

### review 

### ofthe drafttitle 

### V permit (a 

### mergcd title 

### V and New Source Review pennit 

### under 

### the State’s rules) for the Entergy Arkansas -White Bluff Station, located at Redfield, Jefferson County, Arkansas. 

### We received it in our office on October 12,2009. Our commeiits identify a numberofareas 

### ofconcern that we request that you addressprior to issuance 

### ofthe final permit. In 

### additionto our conventionalpermit comments, we are including our feedback

### on those aspects ofthe permit that arc related to the Best -4vailable

### RetrofitTechnology (BART)

### requirements oftheregional haze rule under 

### 40 Codeof Federal Regulations 

### (CFR) 5 1.308. Specifically, 

### for 

### Units 1 and 2, BART for sulfurdioxide (Sol) 

### control was determined to be the retrofit 

### ofa spray dryerabsorber(SDA)/fabrk filter dry flue gas desulfurizationsystem. While weagree this technology 

### is BART for 

### these two units, we do not believe the 

### emission rate of0.15 pounds (1bs)lmillions

### British thermal units (MMBtul is BART. 

### We have seen a number of similar facilities that burn western sub-bituminouscoals, with emission rntes much Iower than 

### this value, following the installation of scrubbers, 

### In [act, we have seen instances in which 

### similar facilitieshave achieved 

### actual 

### emissionsrates approaching

### one third this value. For instance on Unit 1, using the 1005 annual SO2 

### emissionsrate of 17,394.1 

### tons per year, 

### the heat input ofEA1 Exhibit B Docket No. 09-0244 Page 14of 16 52.(198,342 MMBtu, 

### and the stated 

### control efficiency 

### for this

### control technology of 92%', 

### an emissions rate of 

### 0.053lbs/MMBru 

### results. While this 

### is a theoretical 

### maximum level 

### ofcontrol, it does indicate a

### much lower 

### emissionrate 

### is possible. Because ofthis, we do not feel an SO2 emission Iimit 

### of0.15 

### lbs/MMBtu hasbeen 

### shownby the Arkansas Department 

### ofEnvironmental Quality(ADEQ) to be

### BART. A5 the

### US. Env4ronmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has noted in past comments

### on Arkansas' Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), we

### do not believe ADEQ

### hasproperly conducted 

### its BART analyses, including a five factor analysis for 

### ail its 

### BART sources, including the Entergy White Bluff facility,as required under 40 

### CFR 51.308. Had this analysis been performed, we feel that a more stringent control level would have been likely shown to 

### be BART.

### In previouscomments to 

### ADEQ on its regional haze 

### SIP,we identifiedM issue with 

### the auxiliaryboiler, SN-05, which 

### Entergy states 

### is used in the startupofUnits I and 2. 

### We noted that this

### unit waspermitted 

### for 

### 8760hours ofoperation. 

### 'We statedthat altIiough Entergyhas 

### hisroricatlyemployed this unit far 

### less than that, the potential for grcater use exits due to the permit 

### limit. Therefore, Entergy

### should either indude SN-05 

### in the 

### BART analysis assunling8760hours (hrs)/year 

### (yr) ofoperation,

### or revise 

### its permit to reflect this unit'shistorical function. 

### Inresponse,

### ADEQ statedthat Entergy ltnd sinceacceptcd an operation limit of

### 43GO hoursmually. As we stated in 

### our comments to Ihe

### ADEQ draftregional haze 

### SIP, since Entergy feelsit must 

### retain this levelofopcrational flexibility

### for 34-05, then it shouldperform 

### its BART analysis 

### on this basis, as 

### this still represents one half a year of continuousoperations. It appears that ADEQ is attempting toimplcment the 

### BART requirements

### of ils regional 

### haze 

### SIP prior IO an 

### EPAproposed action 

### on the 

### SIP. Wc encourage ADEQ to work with EPA to addressour concernsprior tu draftingthe 

### fmaI proposedpennit since not doing so 

### may result in EPA reopening the permit and

### more stringentcmission limits for the starionary source upon EPA's 

### final action onthe regional haze 

### SIP. in addition, weunderstand that 

### comments arebeing submitted to

### ADEQ by 

### othcr Federal agencies; therefore, 

### we request that

### ADEQ provide a 

### findproposedpennit to 

### EPA for a 45-day review period prior to issuing the 

### final permit. 

### We look fonvard to working with 

### APEQ to resolve the issues identified in our comments and to ensure that the proposed permit is 

### consistent \vi& the requirementsof the

### Arkansas Regulations and 

### addressesEPA's 

### BART concerns. Please send your

Tablc 2-1 andpagc 3-3. from "BARTAnalysisfor thc White BIuff Stcam Elcclric Station. 122006." I

Exhibit AEA1 Exhibit B Docket No. 09-0244 Page 15 of 16

response electronicallythrough mail for recordkeeping

### purposes, Ifyou

### have any questions,please contact

### me at (214) 665-7250 

### or Mlm

### Chang ofmystaffat (2 14) 665-754 1. Thank 

### you foryour cooperation. 

### Sincerely h yours,



### Chief AirPermitsSection Enclosure

Exhibit AEA1 Exhibit B Docket No.09-0244 Page 16 of 16



### ENCLOSURE Statement of Basis Item 3: Pagc 6 of26, Section 12, Emission Factor for SN-OI and SN-02: it states, “Lead: 2.6~-5 IbMiMBtu”. Please clarify “2.6 e-5 lb/MMBtu”. Their three 

### formats werc used in pemiir documentssuch as “4.5 1 

### x1

### 04’* and, “2.26e-4”

### in the StatementofBasis and 

### “ME-5” @age20, Draft Permit). Forthe 

### sake ofavoidingconfusion, pleascminimize the formatsused 

### in thepermit documents, Draft Permit 

## -Pre

## - BART Scenario 

### Item 5: Pages 87,83 and 

### 90,EMlSSION SUMMARY: please spell out the full name of “POM” either 

### in its first appearance. Draft Permit

## -Post BART Scenario Item 

### 7: Page 37, Spccific ConditionsNumbers 4 & 

### 5: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) was not clearlyspecified for startup and shutdownemissions 

### from 

### PC boilers. The draft permit provisionsregarding startup, shutdown,maintenanceandmalfunction are vague, and shouldbe ciarified. 

### PSD emission sources must comply with 

### BACT limits at all 

### times regardless 

### of start-up, shutdown and 

### malfunction

### (SSM) operations. Themonitoringrequirements are inadequate to assure complianceof

### BACT limits at parliculartimes when 

### violations are 

### most likely to occur, such as during 

### SSM opertitions. lteni 

### S: Page 33, SpccificCondition Number 27: it states, “The permittee shall tes~ SN-01 and SN-02

### for PMz5 while opcrating 

### underSccnario I: The PM2.5test 

### shall be performed 

### using an approvedmethod by the Department to demonstratecompliance wit11Specific Condition 25. These tests shall 

### be conducted 

### in accordance with Plantwide ConditionNunibcr 3. Thistestingshall be conducted within 1SO days ofpennit issuance and every five years thereafter.”

a. 

### This condition appears to 

### imply

### that Entergy

### will be required torequest approval 

### ofthe test 

### method it intends to utilize for PM2.5 compliance demonstration. Please verify. If

### this is the case, pleaseprovide a conditionrequiringsubmittals ofthe requested method to 

### ADEQ for approval. 

### In addition,plcase cxplainwhy 

### ADEQ believes the testing frequency requirements are adequateto demonstrate ongoing or continuous compliance,or aretherc other parametric monitorkg requiremcnts that 

### will bc 

### able to 

### demonstrate compliance.

Exhibit 

### A