f*.c: ED BEFORE THE 

ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION I L 

IN THE MATER OF ENTERGY 1 

ARKANSAS, INCIS REQUEST FOR A 1 

DECLARATORY 0 RDER 1 

APPROVING THE ADDITION OF THE ) 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS 1 

PROJECT AT THE WHITE BLUFF 1 

STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NEAR 1 

REDFIELD, ARKANSAS 1 

DOCKET NO. 09-0244 

RESPONSE OF ENTERGY ARKANSAS, 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 of the referenced draft: Xtle V air permit and any attendant 

consequences anticipated related to the APSC’s consideration of EAl’s Petition 

for a Declaratory Order. 

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 submit its next monthly progress report prior to 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”) regulations that €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 

compliance date 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. Code Ann. 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 speciaI conditions? 

In the Petition, EA1 and the other co-Petitioners request that the Director of 

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 

Regulation 19. See EA1 Exhibit B for more information. 

Ark. Code Ann. 5 84313(a)(l). 

-3- 
SIP.3 This variance from the state regulation would make the Petitioners' 

compliance deadIine consistent with federal taw. 

The next PC&E Commission meeting will be held on January 22, 2010. 

Pursuant to the general practice before the PC&E Commission that submittals for 

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, 201 0. 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 Company will 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 desulfurization technology, effective December 31 , 

2009. Suspending the Atstom-Zachry contract at this time will fix the cancellation 

cost at the December value of $9.9 million pursuant to €he terms of the contract. 

During the time of suspension, 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. EA1 can release this team with 5 days notice to Alstom-Zachry. 

See 42 U.S.C. Q§ 7491 (b)(2)(A), (g)(Z); 40 C.F.R. pt 51 Appendix Y (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, 201 3 deadline for installing the 

White Bluff Environmental Controls Project unreasonable and impractical. Given 

this uncertainty over the timing of the 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 customers with 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 regarding the disposition of €he Project. 

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 Petition for 

Declaratory Order. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, 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. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

(501) 371-0808 

ATTORNEYS FOR 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. 

-6- 
CERTIFICATE OF 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. 
BEFORE THE 

ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

IN THE MATTER OF ENTERGY 1 

ARKANSAS, INC.’S REQUEST FOR A 

DECLARATORY ORDER ) 

APPROVING THE ADDITION OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS 1 

PROJECT AT THE WHITE BLUFF 1 

STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NEAR ) 

REDFIELD, ARKANSAS 1 

) 

) 

EA1 EXHIBITA 

EPA LElTER 

DOCKET NO. 09-024-U 
€AI Exhibit A 

Page 1 of4 

Docket NO. 09-024-U 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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 Office Box 891 3 

Little Rock. AR 722 1 9-891 3 

RE: Title V/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Entergy 

Arkansas-White Bluff Station 

Permit Number 0263-AOP-R7, AFIN: 35-001 IO 

Dear Mr. Rheaurne: 

We have completed review of the drafl title V permit (a mergcd title V and New 

Source Review permit under the State’s rules) for ?he Entergy -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 of areas of concern that we request that you 

address prior to issuance of the final perniit. In addition to our conventional permit 

comments, we are including our feedback on those aspects of the pennit that arc related 

to the Best Available Retrofit TechnoIogy (BART) requirements of the regional haze rule 

under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 5 1.308. 

Specifically, for Units 1 and 2, BART for sulhr dioxide (SQ2) control was 

determined to be the retrofit of a spray dryer absorbcr (SDA)/fabrk filter dry flue gas 

desulfurization system. WhiIe we agree this technology is BART for these two units, we 

do no1 believe the emission rate of 0.15 pounds (1bs)lrnillions British thermal units 

(MMBtu 1 is BART. We have seen a number of similar facilities that burn western 

sub-bituminous coals, with emission rates much lower than this value, following the 

instalkhn of scrubbers. In fact, we have seen instances in which similar facilities have 

achieved actual emissions rates approaching one third this value. For instance on Unit 1, 

using the 2005 annual SO2 emissions rate of 17,394.1 tons per year, the heat input of 
€AI Exhibit A 

Page 2 of 4 

Docket NO. 09-0244 

52.698,342 MhIBhl, and the slated control efficiency for this control techiioIogy of 92%', 

an emissions rate of O.053 IbfilMBtu results. tVMe this is a theoretical maximum level 

of control, it does indicate a much lower emission rate is possible. Because of this, we do 

not feel an SO2 emission limit of 0.15 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 on Arkansas' 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 required under 40 CFR 51.308. Bad this analysis been 

performed. we feel that a more slrhgcnt control level would have been likely shown to be 

BART. 

In previous comments to ADEQ on its regional haze SIP, wc identified an issue 

with the auxiliary boiler, SN-05, which Entergy states is used in the startup of Units 1 and 

2. We noted that this unit was permitted for 6760 hours of operation. *We stated that 

although Entergy has historically employed this unit far less than that, the potential for 

greater use exits due to the permit limit. Therefore, Entergy should either include SN-05 

in the BART analysis assuming 8760 hours (hrs)/year (yr) of operation, or revise its 

permit to reflect this unit's historical function. In response, ADEQ stated that Entergy 

had since acceptcd an operation limit of 4360 hours annually. As we stated in our 

cornmenis to the ADEQ draft regional haze SIP, since Entergy feels it must retain this 

level of opcralional flexibility for SN-05, then it should perform its BART analysis on 

this basis, as this still represents one half a year of continuous operations. 

It appears that ADEQ is attempting to implement the BART requirements of its 

regional haze SIP prior IO an EPA proposed action on the SIP. We encouragc ADEQ lo 

work with EPA to address our concerns prior to drafting the final proposed pcrmit since 

not doing so may result in EPA reopening the permit and more stringent emission limits 

for the stationary source upon EPA's final action on the regional haze SIP. In addition, 

we understand that comments are being submittcd to ADEQ by othcr Fcderal agencies; 

therefore, we request that ADEQ provide a final proposed permit to EPA for a 45-day 

review period prior to issuing the final permit. 

We look fonsard to working with ADEQ to resolve the issues identified in our 

comments and 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 Steam Electric Station, 132006.'' 
EA1 Exhibit A 

Page 3 of 4 

Docket NO. 09-0244 

response electronicdly through email for record keeping purposes. If you have any 

questions, please contact me at (214) 665-7250 or Ah Chmg ofmy staff at 

(2 14) 665-7541. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely yours, 

j&&%e-- Jeff Robinson 

Chief 

Air Permits Section 

Enclosure 
EA[ Exhibit A 

Docket No. 09-024-U 

Page 4 of 4 

ENCLOSURE 

Statement of Basis 

Item 3: Page 6 of 26, Section 12, Emission Factor for SN-01 and SN-02: it states, “Lead: 

2.k-5 IbMiMBtu”. Please clarify “2.6 e-5 Ib/MMBtu”. 

Their three formats were used in pcrniit documents such as “4.5 1 x 1 OJ” and, 

“2.2Ge-4” in the Statement of Basis and “2.6E-5” (page 20, Draft Permit). For the 

sake of avoiding confusion, 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 Conditions Numbers 4 & 5: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

was not clearly specified for startup and shutdown emissions from PC boilers. The draft 

permit provisions regarding startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunction are vaguc, and 

should be clarified. 

PSD emission sources must comply with BACT limits at all times regardless of 

start-up, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) opcrations. The monitoring requirements 

are inadequate tu assure compliance of BACT limits at particular times when 

violations are most likely to occur, such as during SSM operztions. 

Item 8: Pagc 33, Spccific Condition Number 27: il states, 

“The permittee shalI test SN-01 and SN-02 for PM23 while operating under Scenario 

I: The PM2.5 test shall be performed using an approved method by the Department to 

demonstrate compliance with Specific Condition 25. These tests shall be conducted 

in accordance with Plantwide Condition Number 3, This testing shall be conducted 

within 180 days of permit issuance and every five years thereafter.” 

a. This condition appears to imply that Entergy will be required to request approval 

of the test method it inlends to utilize for PM2.5 compliance demonstration. 

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 

ADEQ believes the testing frequency requirements are adequate to demonstrate 

onsaing or continuous compliance, or are there other parametric monitoring 

requirenicnts that 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 

APPROVING THE ADDITION OFTHE ) 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS 1 

PROJECT AT THE WHITE BLUFF 1 

STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NEAR ) 

REDFIELD, ARKANSAS 1 

DOCKET NO. 09-024-U 

EA1 EXHlBlT 6 

VARIANCE PETITION 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 09-024-U 

Page 1 of 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 

1 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 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 subjectto-BART identified in ReguIation No. 19.1 504. 

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). 

2 
EA1 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 (one of 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 the White Bluff facility with a 57 percent share. The 

other owners and their respective shares arc: AECC (35%), the City of Jonesboro (5 percent), 

the City of Conway (2 percent), and the City of West Memphis (1 percent). 

3 
EA1 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. 

4 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 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-toBART: 

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 

5 
EA1 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 

Docket No. 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 the timeline for EPA's final action 

on the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. 

7 
EA[ Exhibit B 

Docket No. 09-0244 

Page 8 of 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 number of 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 

8 
EA[ 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 implementing their BART obligations. Moreover, ADEQ issued a draft permit 

for the White Bluff facility in a timely fashion to allow for construction of equipment neccssary 

to meet the facility’s BART obligations. 

9 
EA1 Exhibit 8 

Docket No. 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. 

10 
EA1 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-BART be 

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 

11 
EA1 Exhibit 6 

Docket No. 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 3920 1 

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 

iihenrvRa ep.corn 

Robert M. Lyford 

Senior Vice President and General 

Counsel 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. 

P.O. Box 194208 

1 Cooperative Way 

Little Rock, AR 722 19 

blv€ord@aecc. corn 

Stephen P. Williams 

Senior Staff Attorney 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. 

P.O. Box 194208 

1 Cooperative Way 

Little Rock, AR 722 19 

swiliam@aecc. corn 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

12 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 09-0244 

Page 13 of 16 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION B 

1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 

DALLAS. TX 75202-2733 

Mr. Torn Rheaume 

Permits Branch Manqer 

Air Division 

Arkansas Dcpamnent of 

Environmental Quality 

Post Office Box 89 13 

Little Rock, AR 722 19-89 1 3 

RE: Titlc V/Prevcntion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Entergy 

hkansas-White Bluff Station 

Permit Number 0263-AOP-R7, AFlhT: 35-00 1 IO 

Dear Mr. Rheame: 

We have completed review of the draft title 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 number of areas of concern that we request that you 

address prior to issuance of the final permit. In addition to our conventional permit 

comments, we are including our feedback on those aspects of the permit that arc related 

to the Best -4vailable Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements of the regional haze rule 

under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 5 1.308. 

Specifically, for Units 1 and 2, BART for sulfur dioxide (Sol) control was 

determined to be the retrofit of a spray dryer absorber (SDA)/fabrk filter dry flue gas 

desulfurization system. While we agree this technology is BART for these two units, we 

do not believe the emission rate of 0.15 pounds (1bs)lmillions British thermal units 

(MMBtul is BART. We have seen a number of similar facilities that burn western 

sub-bituminous coals, with emission rntes much Iower than this value, following the 

installation of scrubbers, In [act, we have seen instances in which similar facilities have 

achieved actual emissions rates approaching one third this value. For instance on Unit 1, 

using the 1005 annual SO2 emissions rate of 17,394.1 tons per year, the heat input of 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 09-0244 

Page 14 of 16 

52.(198,342 MMBtu, and the stated control efficiency for this control technology of 92%', 

an emissions rate of 0.053 lbs/MMBru results. While this is a theoretical maximum level 

of control, it does indicate a much lower emission rate is possible. Because of this, we do 

not feel an SO2 emission Iimit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu has been shown by the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to be BART. A5 the US. Env4ronmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has noted in past comments on Arkansas' Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), we do not believe ADEQ has properly 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 previous comments to ADEQ on its regional haze SIP, we identified M issue 

with the auxiliary boiler, SN-05, which Entergy states is used in the startup of Units I and 

2. We noted that this unit was permitted for 8760 hours of operation. 'We stated that 

altIiough Entergy has hisroricatly employed 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 assunling 8760 hours (hrs)/year (yr) of operation, or revise its 

permit to reflect this unit's historical function. In response, ADEQ stated that Entergy 

ltnd since acceptcd an operation limit of 43GO hours mually. As we stated in our 

comments to Ihe ADEQ draft regional haze SIP, since Entergy feels it must retain this 

level of opcrational flexibility for 34-05, then it should perform its BART analysis on 

this basis, as this still represents one half a year of continuous operations. 

It appears that ADEQ is attempting to implcment the BART requirements of ils 

regional haze SIP prior IO an EPA proposed action on the SIP. Wc encourage ADEQ to 

work with EPA to address our concerns prior tu drafting the fmaI proposed pennit since 

not doing so may result in EPA reopening the permit and more stringent cmission limits 

for the starionary source upon EPA's final action on the regional haze SIP. in addition, 

we understand that comments are being submitted to ADEQ by othcr Federal agencies; 

therefore, we request that ADEQ provide a find proposed pennit 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 requirements of 

the Arkansas Regulations and addresses EPA's BART concerns. Please send your 

Tablc 2-1 and pagc 3-3. from "BART Analysis for thc White BIuff Stcam Elcclric Station. 122006." I 

Exhibit A 
EA1 Exhibit B 

Docket No. 09-0244 

Page 15 of 16 

response electronically through mail for record keeping purposes, If you have any 

questions, please contact me at (214) 665-7250 or Mlm Chang ofmy staff at 

(2 14) 665-754 1. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely h yours, 

Chief 

Air Permits Section 

Enclosure 

Exhibit A 
EA1 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 documents such as “4.5 1 x 1 04’* and, 

“2.26e-4” in the Statement of Basis and “ME-5” @age 20, Draft Permit). For the 

sake of avoiding confusion, pleasc minimize the formats used in the permit 

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 Conditions Numbers 4 & 5: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

was not clearly specified for startup and shutdown emissions from PC boilers. The draft 

permit provisions regarding startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunction are vague, and 

should be ciarified. 

PSD emission sources must comply with BACT limits at all times regardless of 

start-up, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) operations. The monitoring requirements 

are inadequate to assure compliance of BACT limits at parlicular times when 

violations are most likely to occur, such as during SSM opertitions. 

lteni S: Page 33, Spccific Condition Number 27: it states, 

“The permittee shall tes~ SN-01 and SN-02 for PMz5 while opcrating under Sccnario 

I: The PM2.5 test shall be performed using an approved method by the Department to 

demonstrate compliance wit11 Specific Condition 25. These tests shall be conducted 

in accordance with Plantwide Condition Nunibcr 3. This testing shall be conducted 

within 1 SO days of pennit issuance and every five years thereafter.” 

a. This condition appears to imply that Entergy will be required to request approval 

of the test method it intends to utilize for PM2.5 compliance demonstration. 

Please verify. If this is the case, please provide a condition requiring submittals 

of the requested method to ADEQ for approval. In addition, plcase cxplain why 

ADEQ believes the testing frequency requirements are adequate to demonstrate 

ongoing or continuous compliance, or are therc other parametric monitorkg 

requiremcnts that will bc able to demonstrate compliance. 

Exhibit A