TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

Tulane Environmental Law Clinic

6329 Freret St., Ste. 130, New Orleans, LA 70118-6231 tel 504.865.5789 fax 504.862.8721 www.tulane.edu/~telc

January 8, 2009

Via Hand Delivery

Ms. Soumaya Ghosn

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Public Participation Group

602 N. Fifth Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313. 

RE: Comments on the Proposed Part 70 Air Operating Permit Reopening for Louisiana

Generating, LLC‘s Big Cajun I Power Plant

AI Number 11917

Permit Number 2260-00007-V2

Activity Number PER20080001

Dear Ms. Ghosn,

We are writing to comment on the Proposed Part 70 Air Operating Permit for Louisiana

Generating, LLC‘s Big Cajun I Power Plant noticed for public comment by the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality on December 4, 2008. 

We submit these comments on behalf of the Sierra Club, Alliance for Affordable Energy, 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Mr. O'Neil Couvillion.

I. Introduction

On December 4, 2008, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the 

―Department‖) proposed Part 70/Title V Permit 2260-00007-V2 (―draft permit‖) for the Big 

Cajun I Power Plant (the ―Plant‖) owned and operated by Louisiana Generating, LLC, and 

located in Point Coupee Parish, Louisiana. The Department had already issued a Title V permit 

for the Plant, but was required to reopen the permit to meet the requirements of Section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. 

Clean Air Act § 112(g)(2)(B) commands: ―no person may construct or reconstruct any 

major source of hazardous air pollutants, unless the Administrator (or the State) determines that 

the maximum achievable control technology [―MACT‖] emission limitation under this section 

for new sources will be met.‖ Further, the provision requires that the determination of maximum 

achievable control technology ―shall be made on a case-by-case basis where no applicable 

emission limitations have been established . . . .‖
2

The Plant is a ―major source‖ under §112(a)(1) and is therefore subject to the 

requirements of §112(g)(2)(B). Clean Air Act § 112 forbids construction of the Plant unless and 

until Louisiana Generating obtains a MACT determination from the Department for every 

hazardous air pollutant that the Plant will emit. See Nat’l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 

(D.C. Cir. 2000) (noting the ―clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed 

HAP‖). The D.C. Circuit made clear that § 112(g)(2)(B) applies to the Plant. New Jersey v. 

EPA, No. 05-0197, 2008 WL 341338 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8. 2008) (vacating effort by EPA to remove 

coal-fired power plants from the list of sources subject to Clean Air Act § 112). 

The draft permit purports to meet MACT requirements for the Plants‘ HAPs, but it does 

not. The draft permit is deficient because the MACT determination fails to establish an emission 

limit for each HAP the Plant would emit, including radionuclides and cyanide—which the draft 

permit completely ignores. The draft permit also incorrectly addresses the Plant‘s metallic and 

organic HAPs through inadequate surrogates. Furthermore, the MACT limits set in the draft 

permit for mercury, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride do not meet stringent MACT 

standards. The limits are not based on ―emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source,‖ as required by § 112 of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Department 

should revise the draft permit after conducting an appropriate MACT analysis for all HAPs that 

will be emitted by the Plant and properly surveying the emissions limits achieved by other 

similar sources. 

II. The Department Has Failed to Make an Adequate MACT determination for the Big 

Cajun I Power Plant.

The Department has not established legally sufficient limitations for the Plant‘s emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires every major source 

of hazardous air pollutants to limit its emissions of such pollutants to a rate consistent with the 

―maximum achievable control technology‖ (―MACT‖). 42 U.S.C. § 7412 (d)(1). 

Congress enacted the present version of Section 112 to address two central concerns. 

First, the air pollutants addressed by Section 112 are very toxic, ―pos[ing] a significant threat to 

public health.‖ S. Rep. No. 101-228, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3517 (1989). When Congress 

amended the Act to create the currently applicable requirements, studies estimated that the 

―cancer incidence attributable to toxic air pollution may be as high as 500,000 fatal cases for 

those Americans now alive.‖ S. Rep. No. 101-225, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3514 (1989). And 

hazardous air pollutants ―also cause widespread environmental degradation.‖ Lakes and rivers in 

more than 45 states and several tribes all across the United States are now posted with fish 

advisories and warnings for pregnant women and children because of high mercury levels in fish 

attributable to mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Second, Congress amended section 112 in response to agencies‘ persistent failure and 

delay in regulating these air toxics. Congress described efforts to reduce hazardous air pollution 

as ―a record of false starts and failed opportunities,‖ and speculated that agency foot-dragging 

might be motivated by the fact that reductions might be ―potentially very costly for some source 

categories or pollutants.‖ Id. at 3517-18. Those twin legislative concerns – enormously harmful 
3

pollutants, and regulatory agencies that had persistently failed to address them – resulted in a 

legal framework that demands strict limitations and provides agencies with little discretion to 

relax or avoid those limits.

EPA has listed oil- and coal-fired power plants as major sources of HAP, subjecting such 

plants (including the Big Cajun I Power Plant) to Section 112‘s requirements. Regulatory 

Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units, 65 Fed. Reg. 79,825 (December 20, 2000).1 Coal-fired plants ―emit a significant number 

of the 188 HAP‖ regulated by Section 112, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, beryllium, 

lead, manganese, selenium, dioxins, and a variety of acid gases (including hydrogen chloride 

and hydrogen fluoride ). Each of those toxic pollutants poses substantial health concerns. For 

example, ―[o]ffspring born of women exposed to relatively high levels of [mercury] during 

pregnancy have exhibited a variety of developmental neurological abnormalities, including 

delayed developmental milestones, cerebral palsy, and reduced neurological test scores.‖ Id. at 

79,829. There is also new epidemiological evidence that high levels of mercury result in fatal 

and non-fatal heart attacks among adult males2 Arsenic, chromium, dioxin and beryllium are all 

likely carcinogens, id. at 79,827, and acid gases cause respiratory disease and other illnesses.

A. MACT Limits for New Sources of Hazardous Air Pollution. 

Section 112 prohibits any person from ―construct[ing] or reconstruct[ing] any major 

source of hazardous air pollutants,‖ or ―modify[ing]‖ such a source, ―unless the Administrator 

(or the State) determines‖ that the source will meet the applicable MACT limits. 42 U.S.C. § 

7412(g)(2). Where, as here, EPA has failed to promulgate national MACT standards for the new 

source, EPA or the State must determine the applicable MACT standard for the source on a ―case 

by case basis.‖ Id. 

The MACT determination must result in: 

[T]he maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(including a prohibition on such emissions, where achievable) that the permitting 

authority, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction 

and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable . . . .

40 C.F.R. 63.55(a)(2). See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). The Act further sets a ―floor,‖ establishing 

the maximum emissions that may be permitted as MACT: ―[The MACT] limitation must not be 

 

1 EPA unlawfully ―de-listed‖ power plants from the 112(c) list in 2005. 70 Fed. Reg. 15,994 (Mar. 29, 2005). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has vacated that decision; it has no legal effect. New Jersey v. 

E.P.A. __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. 2008). See, e.g., Environmental Defense v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 55, 64 (D.D.C. 

2004) (―When a court vacates an agency‘s rules, the vacatur restores the status quo before the invalid rule took 

effect.‖); Environmental Defense v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1320, 1325 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (while remanded regulations remain 

in effect, vacated regulations do not); Campanale & Sons, Inc. v. Evans, 311 F.3d 109, 127 (1st Cir. 2002) (option of 

vacating a regulation described as ―overturning it in its entirety‖). The Big Cajun I Plant must, therefore, meet 

Section 112‘s requirements.

2 Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power 

Plants, NESCAUM, February 2005
4

less stringent than the emissions limitation achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 

source . . . .‖ 40 C.F.R. 63.55(a)(3). See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). 

To reach that ―maximum degree of reduction,‖ the permitting agency must examine 

―methods, systems, and techniques‖ of HAP-reduction, including, but not limited to, measures 

which:

(A) reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants

through process changes, substitution of materials, or other 

modifications,

(B) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions,

(C) collect, capture or treat such pollutants when released from a process, 

stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point,

(D) are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 

(including requirements for operator training or certification) . . . 

(E) are a combination of the above.

42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). 

The MACT determination must, furthermore, produce a limit for each HAP emitted 

by the proposed facility. Section 112(d) requires ―the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). 

And Section 112 defines ―hazardous air pollutants‖ to include ―any air pollutant listed 

pursuant to [Section 112(b)].‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(6) (emphasis added). See National Lime 

Ass’n v. Environmental Protection Agency,233 F.3d 625, 633-34 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

B. The Draft Permit Fails to Set Adequate Limits for All Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Emitted by the Plant.

The draft permit provides direct MACT limits for mercury,3hydrogen chloride, and 

hydrogen fluoride. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Envtl. 

Services, Statement of Basis Big Cajun I Power Plant, Louisiana Generating LLC (December 

4, 2008) (―Statement of Basis‖) at 5. It further includes limits on total particulate matter as a 

―surrogate‖ for all metallic HAPs, and for carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate for all 

organic HAPs. Those surrogates fail to adequately address all of the HAPs emitted by the 

Plant. 

As an initial matter, those limits fail completely to address radionuclides and cyanide, 

both of which will be emitted by the Plant. Though the United States E.P.A. has suggested 

that Section 112 does not apply to radionuclide emissions from power plants, the law 

demands a MACT limit for every HAP emitted by the Plant. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(A)(6). 

 

3The draft permit recognizes that mercury and its compounds require a separate grouping by itself for MACT 

limitation. Mercury has unique chemical and physical properties with respect to emission control. Thus, there is no 

acceptable surrogate for mercury and a MACT limit must be determined by doing a formal MACT floor and 

beyond-the-floor analysis. 
5

Furthermore, surrogate limits may be used in lieu of limits directly addressing each 

HAP only under limited circumstances. National Lime, 233 F.3d at 637-39; Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 982-985 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Sierra Club I). A regulator may not arbitrarily 

identify a surrogate without specifically linking the surrogate with each HAP that it is 

intended to represent. See Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1243 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004).4 And furthermore:

[Particulate matter] is a reasonable surrogate for HAPs if (1) ―HAP metals are 

invariably present . . . in [particulate matter];‖ (2) ―[Particulate matter] control 

technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other particulates;‖ 

and (3) ―[Particulate matter] control is the only means by which facilities 

 ̳achieve‘ reductions in HAP metal emissions.‖

Sierra Club I, 353 F.3d at 984 (quoting National Lime, 233 F.3d at 639). The surrogate limits 

in the draft permit fail to meet those standards.

1. Particulate Matter Is Not an Adequate Surrogate for All Metallic 

HAP

a. HAP Metals Are Not Invariably Present In Particulate 

Matter

The Statement of Basis uses particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for control of 

metallic HAPs. It does not identify the specific HAPs that it means to include in this 

grouping. Because mercury is addressed separately, we presume that ―metallic HAPs‖ 

includes the balance of the HAP metals, or antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

These elements are not all consistently present in particulate matter (that is, the 

particulates that arrive at the inlet to the particulate control device). Exhibit 3A5at 223-224, 

Exhibit 3B,

6

 Some are present as gases, and as such are not removed by pollution-control 

devices that limit particulate matter Selenium is the most problematic; 50% to 100% of the 

selenium in coal exists as a vapor in exhaust gases. Up to 52% of the arsenic also may be 

present as a gas. Further, depending upon the fuel and control train, some of the otherwise 

nonvolatile trace metals, including chromium and nickel, may be present in the vapor phase. 

Finally, mercury controls, including powdered activated carbon proposed to control mercury 

emissions from Big Cajun I (SOB at 4), have been demonstrated to increase the amount of 

 

4 The Court in Mossville rejected EPA‘s reliance on vinyl chloride as a surrogate for all HAP form PVC production 

facilities, ruling unambiguously that EPA was required to ―establish a correlation between the surrogate and the 

HAP‖ and that to do so the agency was affirmatively required to identify each HAP that the facility would emit, and 

directly link each such HAP with the chosen surrogate. 370 F.3d at 1243. It was fatally insufficient for EPA to 

simply assert without detailed, HAP-specific analysis that vinyl chloride was an appropriate surrogate for all HAP. 

5 Minghou Xu, Rong Yan, Chunguang Zheng, Yu Qiao, Jun Han, and Changdong Sheng, Status of Trace Element 

Emission in a Coal Combustion Process: A Review, Fuel Processing Technology, v. 85, 2003, pp. 215-237. 

6 William P. Linak and Jost O.L. Wendt, Trace Metal Transformation Mechanisms During Coal Combustion, Fuel 

Processing Technology, v. 39, 1994, pp. 173-198.
6

chromium and nickel in stack gases, compared to no mercury control. Exhibit 3C.7 

Particulate matter cannot, therefore, serve as a viable surrogate for the above-described HAP.

b. Particulate Control Does Not Indiscriminately Capture 

HAP Metals

Metallic HAP that are present in particulate matter are, as a general matter, volatilized in 

the boiler, and condense as very fine particulate matter or nanoparticles (typically smaller than 1 

micron) in the pollution control train. Exs. 1,83B. The highest concentrations of most metallic 

HAPs are consistently found in the smallest particles. Exs. 2.9 Particulate-matter control devices 

do not capture these smaller particles as efficiently as they do larger particles. Exhibit 3A (Table 

1.1-6), 3B (Fig. 8).10 The larger particles contain far less metallic HAPs than smaller particles. 

As a result, particulate matter controls do not ―indiscriminately‖ capture HAP metals at the 

same rate as other particulates; they favor the larger, non-metallic HAP-laden particles. For 

example, one study found that particles smaller than 1 micron made up 5% of the total particle 

mass before the particle control device while after the device, they made up 50% of the mass. 

Exhibit 3C. 

The Department‘s MACT limit, as a result, provides no reliable MACT limitation on 

metallic HAP. The Statement of Basis concludes that MACT will be satisfied by a baghouse and 

by the BACT PM10 emission limit of 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Statement of Basis at 4-5. The 

particulate collection efficiency for conventional baghouses designed to collect PM10 is generally 

lower for the tiny particles than for larger particles; as a result, they capture ―particulate matter,‖ 

while allowing most of the metallic HAPs (which exist primarily in smaller particles) to escape. 

Exhibit 4A,11 Exhibit 4B12 at 1582. A fabric filter system designed to meet BACT for PM, as is 

 

7 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Hazardous Air Pollutants, May 15, 2008, Presentation of John Pavlish, EERC. Voice 

recording also available online to subscribers of McIlvaine Power Plant Knowledge System and available for 

purchase.

8 R.C. Flagan and S.K. Friedlander, Particle Formation in Pulverized Coal Combustion – A Review, In: Recent 

Developments in Aerosol Science, D.T. Shaw (Ed.), 1978, Chapter 2 (Exhibit 1A); A.S. Damale, D.S. Ensor, and 

M.B. Ranade, Coal Combustion Aerosol Formation Mechanisms: A Review, Aerosol Science & Technology, v. 1, 

no. 1, 1982, pp. 119-133. See also: S.K. Friedlander, Smoke, Dust, and Haze. Fundamentals of Aerosol Dynamics, 

2

nd Ed., Oxford University Press, 2000.

9 Richard L. Davidson and others, Trace Elements in Fly Ash, Environmental Science & Technology, v. 8, no. 13, 

December 1974, pp. 1107-1113 (Exhibit 2A); E.S. Gladney and others, Composition and Size Distribution of InState Particulate Material at a Coal-Fired Power Plant, Atmospheric Environment, v. 10, 1976, pp. 1071-1077 

(Exhibit 2B); John M. Ondov, Richard C. Ragaini, and Arthur H. Biermann, Emissions and Particle-size 

Distributions of Minor and Trace Elements at Two Western Coal-fired Power Plants Equipped with Cold-side 

Electrostatic Precipitators, Environmental Science & Technology, v. 13, 1979, pp. 946-953 (Exhibit 2C); W.P. Linak 

and others, Comparison of Particle Size Distributions and Elemental Partitioning from Combustion of Pulverized 

Coal and Residual Fuel Oil, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., v. 50, 2000, pp. 1532-1544 (Exhibit 2D).

10 U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, September 1998, Section 1.1, Coal Combustion 

(Exhibit 3A); M.W. McElroy and others, Size Distribution of Fine Particles from Coal Combustion, Science, v. 215, 

no. 4528, January 1, 1982 (Exhibit 3B).

11 AP-42, Table 1.1-5,

12 JoAnn S. Lighty, John M. Veranth, and Adel F. Sarofim, Combustion Aerosols: Factors Governing their Size and 

Composition and Implications to Human Health, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc, v. 50, 2000, pp. 1565-1618.
7

the case here, does not meet MACT for metallic HAPs. These smaller particles also cause 

proportionately more of the adverse health impacts because they can penetrate deep into the 

lung. Exhibit 4B. If particulate matter is used as a surrogate for any non-mercury metallic HAP, 

it should be based on the smallest size fraction feasible. Methods have been developed to 

measure particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns or PM2.5, which is a better surrogate for 

metallic HAPs than PM or PM10.

c. Facilities Achieve Reductions in HAP Metal Emissions By 

Means Other Than Particulate Matter Control.

Particulate matter control is not the only means by which facilities achieve reductions 

in metallic HAP. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has observed, in order for particulate 

matter to serve as an adequate surrogate for metal HAP:

other inputs [such as fuel type] must ―affect HAP metal emissions in the same fashion 

than they affect the other components of [particulate matter.]‖ Put another way, 

―[particulate matter] might not be an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals if switching 

fuels would decrease HAP metal emissions without causing a corresponding reduction in 

total [particulate matter] emissions. The reason is clear: if EPA looks only to [particulate 

matter], but HAPs are reduced by altering inputs in a way that does not reduce 

[particulate matter], the best achieving sources, and what they can achieve with respect to 

HAPs, might not be properly identified.

Sierra Club I, 353 F.3d at 985 (quoting National Lime, 233 F.3d at 639). 

Several ―other inputs‖ affect HAP metal emissions in a different fashion than they 

affect particulate matter emissions. Id. First, ―switching fuels would decrease HAP metal 

emissions without causing a corresponding reduction‖ in total particulate matter. Id. 

Different coals contain different quantities of metallic HAP but the same amount of ash, so 

that the particulate residue that results from burning different coals can contain more, or less, 

metallic HAP, Accordingly, utilizing a cleaner coal (or less coal) can reduce metallic HAP 

emissions, without reducing particulate emissions. 

The effect of fuel-related inputs on metallic HAP emissions differs from such inputs‘ 

effect on particulate matter for three reasons. First, the ash13 content of the coal used as a fuel 

determines the particulate matter concentration in a plant‘s flue gases. Ex. 49A.14 The 

summary of Powder River coal quality attached as Exhibit 6 shows that the ash content 

remains stable across many coals, while the trace elements can vary significantly. For 

example, coal from the Jacobs Ranch mine contains about 5.5% ash and lower concentrations 

of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and selenium than coal from the Cordero 

 

13 Ash is a measure of the inorganic material present in coal. This inorganic material is not burned, but becomes 

bottom ash, removed in the boiler, and fly ash, which becomes airborne and is particulate matter. About 80% of the 

ash becomes fly ash. See, e.g., Gary L. Borman and Kenneth W. Ragland, Combustion Engineering, WCB 

McGraw-Hill, 1998, pp. 522-523 and Exhibit 9, Table 1.1-4 (filterable PM emission factors expressed as a constant 

times the ash content).

14 J-I. Yoo and others, Particle-Size Distributions and Heavy Metal Partitioning in Emission Gas from Different 

Coal-Fired Power Plants, Environmental Engineering Science, v. 22, No. 2, 2005.
8

mine. Thus, lower stack emissions of these elements could be obtained by burning Jacobs 

Ranch coal instead of Cordero coal. Alternatively, Big Cajun I could switch from a coal 

containing low amounts of HAPs, such as Jacobs Ranch, to a similar coal containing higher 

amounts of HAPs, increasing HAP emissions without affecting particulate matter emissions. 

Such alterations in fuel supply thus ―affect HAP metal emissions‖ in a far different fashion 

than they affect particulate matter. Sierra Club I, 353 F.3d at 985.

Second, the relationship between individual HAPs and particulate matter is different 

for the individual HAPs that are included in the collection of elements represented by the 

particulate matter surrogate. Exhibit 7 shows the relationship between ash content and 

selenium, lead, manganese, chromium, cadmium, beryllium, and arsenic for Kentucky 

bituminous coals. These charts show that there is a direct positive relationship between ash 

and the amount of selenium, manganese, and chromium in this coal, but no relationship 

between ash and the amount of lead, cadmium, beryllium and arsenic. 

Third, the relationship between ash and metallic HAPs varies for different coals in 

unpredictable ways. Exhibit 815 reports an analysis of the relationship between ash and 

metallic HAPs for Pittsburg 8 coals. This analysis found not only different relationships 

between HAPs and ash for each HAP (see equations for each HAP at bottom of page 8), but 

also different relationships for Kentucky coal in Exhibit 7 and Pittsburg 8 coal in Exhibit 8. 

Thus, particulate matter (which arises from coal ash) cannot be reliably used as an indicator 

of HAP emissions.,

Fourth, the Department has exacerbated these problems by using total filterable

particulates as its surrogate (where total refers to all sizes of particles from the largest to the 

smallest). As discussed above, HAP metals are present primarily in fine particulates, less 

than 1 micron in size. As a result, particulate controls focusing on total particulates may not 

significantly reduce metallic HAP emissions. 

Further, most of the particulate matter mass (98%,) is bigger than 1 micron. Exhibit

4A,16 Table 1.1-6. Indeed, the sum of the non-mercury metallic HAPs in stack gases 

reported in lb/MMBtu is less than 1% of the filterable PM reported in the same units. The 

other 99% of the particulate mass is mostly oxides of silica, iron, sodium, calcium, and 

potassium. These substances are affected by different chemical and physical mechanisms 

than the metallic HAPs, which are controlled by volatilization and condensation reactions 

that concentrate them in the very smallest particles with the largest surface area. Thus, 

particulate matter per se is too diverse and the target HAP fraction too small to serve as a 

surrogate for less than 1% of the whole.

As explained above, the prescribed particulate matter limit could be met by removing 

these larger particles, without removing (or less efficiently removing) the smaller particles 

where the metallic HAPs are found. The removal efficiency of the two most common 

 

15 P.R. Tumati and R.A. Bilonick, Estimating Trace Element Emissions Using USGS Coal Data, Journal of the Air 

& Waste Management Association, v. 46, no. 1, 1996, pp. 58-65.

16 U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 1998, Section 1.1, Bituminous and Subbituminous 

Coal Combustion.
9

particulate matter control devices -- fabric filter baghouses and electrostatic precipitators --

have much higher control efficiencies for big particles than small particles. See references 

cited supra. Thus, the most commonly used particulate control devices, including the device 

proposed here to comply with MACT (a conventional baghouse designed to remove total 

filterable particulate matter) capture a large fraction of coarse particulates, but are far less 

effective in capturing finer particulates where the non-mercury metallic HAPs are found, thus 

providing low total particulate emissions but high metallic HAP emissions. An ESP and a 

baghouse designed to capture fine particulates might produce similar emissions of total 

particulates, but very different metallic HAP emissions.

d. Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the draft permit‘s limit on total particulate matter does not 

provide a legally sufficient MACT limit for metallic HAP. Any use of particulate matter as a 

surrogate for trace-metal HAP would, first, need to be limited to only those HAP that are 

consistently present in particulate matter. Second, it would need to be based on the fine fraction 

of PM (PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter).17 As set forth above, including larger particulates 

disrupts the necessary relationship between the surrogate (particulate matter) and the regulated 

HAP (trace metals). In order to use particulate matter as a surrogate, accordingly, the 

Department should, first, utilize PM2.5 rather than total particulates or PM10. Third, surrogate 

limits must be continuously monitored, and serve as a continuous indicator of HAP emissions. 

LDEQ must include monitoring methods that accurately measures PM2.5. Finally, any surrogate 

emission limit for metallic HAPs must be expressed in mass-based limits for PM2.5 (for example, 

in units of mass of PM2.5 in lb per million Btu input or in lbs per GW-hr of output), in order to 

properly capture HAP reductions resulting from increased electrical production efficiency. 

2. Carbon Monoxide is Not an Adequate Surrogate for All Organic 

HAP

a. Organic HAPs Are Not Invariably Present in Carbon 

Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide is not an adequate surrogate for organic HAP. First, organic HAPs are 

not ―present‖ in CO at all. Carbon monoxide emissions indicate incomplete combustion, and 

thus provide an indicator of whether a facility is operating at a high combustion rate. Such an 

―operational standard‖ may be substituted for limits on actual HAP emissions only when the 

permitting authority determines that ―it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce‖ HAP limits. 42 

U.S.C. § 7411(h). As a result, a CO-based limit – which is, in essence, a surrogate for an 

operational standard – cannot be used here, where HAP limits are feasible (and the Department 

has not made any findings that would indicate otherwise).

Second, there are three classes of organic HAPs that behave differently during 

combustion: (1) volatile organic compounds, which are gases; (2) semi-volatile organic 

 

17 Kilgroe, J.D. et al. Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report, EPA-. 

600/R-01-109, December 2001.
10

compounds, which may be gases or solids, depending on where in the exhaust gas train they are; 

and (4) particulate organic compounds, such as polynuclear aromatic compounds and dioxins, 

which are present in the particulate fraction. See, for example, physical and chemical data for 

the subject organic HAPs as reported in standard handbooks.18 A single indicator, CO, cannot be 

used as a surrogate for these three diverse groups of chemicals as they are chemically and 

physically dissimilar.

Most of the particulate organic compounds, for example, form primarily downwind, the 

atmosphere. Thus, filterable particulate matter collected within the stack would grossly 

underestimate or not detect at all, these compounds, which would most likely be found in the 

condensable fraction of particulate matter. Exhibit 9.19 The Department did not include the 

condensable fraction of particulate matter in its particulate surrogate.

Several of these compounds are not products of incomplete combustion, like CO, but 

rather are formed via distinct chemical reaction pathways. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

are formed in condensation reactions.20 Dioxins are formed from the reaction of unburned 

hydrocarbons and chlorine. Dioxins form in the pollution control equipment at flue gas 

temperatures of 450 to 650 F. Low chlorine fuels, such as coke and subbituminous coals, would 

form less dioxins than bituminous coals, which contain much higher amounts of chlorine. 

Exhibit 47.21 As a result, the Plant‘s dioxin emissions can vary inversely to the Plant‘s CO 

concentrations. Altering the Plant‘s fuel-mix from coal to coke, for example, would increase the 

Plant‘s CO emissions, but reduce dioxins. The plant is permitted to burn a variety of fuels. The 

proposed MACT CO limit, accordingly, provides no assurance against emissions of the abovedescribed HAPs.

b. CO Control Does Not Indiscriminately Capture Organic 

HAPs, and Facilities Achieve Reductions in Organic HAP 

Emissions By Means Other Than CO Control.

There are pollution-control methods that would reduce the Plant‘s organic HAP 

emissions, without producing a corresponding reduction in the plant‘s carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions. Combustion optimization is the only means by which the Department proposes to 

control carbon monoxide (and therefore organic HAP). This includes changes in combustion 

residence time, turbulence, and temperature. Combustion optimization will increase some 

organic HAPs (such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), reduce some organic HAPs 

(such as VOCs), and have no significant effect on certain other organic HAPs (such as 

 

18 John A. Dean, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 13th Ed., McGraw Hill Book Co., 1985; Robert H. Perry and Don 

W. Green, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 7th Ed., 1997; David R. Lide (Ed.), CRC Handbook of 

Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, 75th Ed., 1994.

19 D.F.S. Natusch, Potentially Carcinogenic Species Emitted to the Atmosphere by Fossil-Fueled Power Plants, 

Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 22, 1978, pp. 79-90.

20 William Bartok and Adel F. Sarofim, Fossil Fuel Combustion: A Source Book, John Wiley & Sons,, 1991; J. 

Warnatz, U. Maas, and R.W. Dibble, Combustion: Physical and Chemical Fundamentals, Modeling and Simulation, 

Experiments, Pollutant Formation, 2nd Ed., Springer, 1999; D.J. Hucknall, Chemistry of Hydrocarbon Combustion, 

Chapman and Hall, 1985.

21 Helsinki University of Technology, Halogens, Dioxins/Furans, Slides.
11

dioxin). Other carbon monoxide controls, such as substituting alternative fuels (natural gas, 

or distillate oil) would reduce organic HAPs at a far higher rate than carbon monoxide.

Beyond that, the draft permit uses as its ―surrogate‖ limit the Plant‘s 24-hour block 

average CO emissions. Measured over such long periods, CO emissions lack the necessarily 

―indiscriminating‖ correlation with organic HAP emissions. Sierra Club I, 353 F.3d at 984. 

Those organic HAPs which do result from incomplete combustion can be typically produced in 

very large quantities during very short ―hot spot‖ incomplete-combustion events, such as occur 

during burner malfunction, startups and shutdowns, and shifts in fuel (e.g., from coke to coal or 

different blends of coke and coal). A 24-hour block average fails to capture these ―hot-spot‖ 

events, so that significant variations in HAP emissions may occur without causing a significant 

change in the 24-hour block average CO emissions. For all of these reasons, carbon monoxide is 

not an adequate surrogate for the Plant‘s organic HAP emissions.22

c. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, CO cannot be used as a surrogate for organic HAP. 

Carbon monoxide is an acceptable surrogate, first, for only those HAP (if any) for which actual 

limits are not feasible. Second, the Plant should be required to perform additional testing to 

confirm that reduced CO emissions results in negligible amounts of organic HAP emissions, and 

to identify the organic HAP that are controlled by combustion optimization. The Plant should be 

required to test and assess the relationship between CO, combustion temperatures, and HAP 

emissions, placing special emphasis on evaluating and quantifying the relationship between 

combustion temperatures and the concentrations of CO and organic HAPs. The Plant‘s dioxin 

emissions, in particular, need to be quantified and addressed, because of dioxin‘s high toxicity 

even at low concentrations. Third, any surrogate MACT limit for CO must be based on shorttime average (of the order of one hour). Organic HAPs are produced at very high ―hot spot‖ rates 

when combustion is poor. Very large quantities of HAP can be produced, therefore, during very 

short periods of incomplete combustion. See above. As a result, low long-term average CO 

emissions may still not protect against very high HAP emissions. 

C. The Department’s MACT Limits Are Not Based on the Emissions 

Achieved in Practice by the Best Controlled Similar Source.

MACT determinations generally begin by establishing the ―MACT floor‖ – the 

―emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.‖ 42 

U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). The Department‘s MACT limits for the Plant do not begin at that 

necessary starting point. 

First, the Department has not identified the ―best controlled similar source‖ for any of the 

HAPs emitted by the Plant. Id. The law requires the Department ―‘to make a reasonable 

estimate of the performance‖ of the best-controlled unit in the appropriate category. Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, 255 F.3d 855, 861-62 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

The Department‘s Statement of Basis, however, makes no reference to other power plants, or 

 

22 Prabir Basu, Combustion and Gasification in Fluidized Beds, Taylor & Francis, 2006,
12

their performance. The draft permit‘s limits cannot, therefore, plausibly be tied to the ―emissions 

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). 

Once a regulator has identified each HAP that a facility will emit, it must establish 

MACT independently for each HAP. That is, for each HAP the regulator must identify the 

individual best performing similar source and identify the emission performance that that source 

achieves in practice. Accordingly, in this instance, the Department will need to identify the 

emission limitation achieved in practice by the single best performing similar source for each of 

dozens of HAP that the Big Cajun I plant is likely to emit. 

The Department should re-issue the draft permit after conducting a formal MACT 

analysis based on a survey of the emissions limits achieved by other similar sources. survey 

must include, at a minimum: documented inquiries of state and federal regulators who may 

be making (or have made) MACT determinations for such sources (or who may be imposing 

other non-MACT limits on HAP); contacts with vendors; inquiries of the Institute of Clean 

Air Companies and EPA‘s Online Clearinghouses on installed technologies and emissions

limits achieved in practice, or other groups with information regarding pollution-control 

technologies; and any other sources of information on HAP emissions. See Exhibit 46.

23

 

And that information needs to be made available to the public; absent some knowledge of the 

Department‘s analysis, the public cannot reasonably understand the permit, participate in the 

Department‘s permitting process, or comment upon the draft permit.

Second, rather than identify the ―emissions control achieved in practice,‖ id. 

(emphasis added), by other sources, the Department has selected a purportedly appropriate 

control technology, and calculated emissions limits based on the expected performance of 

that technology. See, e.g., Statement of Basis 3-5 (―Big Cajun I will utilize a lime spray dryer 

and activated carbon injection in conjunction with a baghouse in order to control emissions 

of mercury.‖). 

The MACT floor, however, is not set by reference to particular technologies; it must 

be set at the actual emissions of the best-controlled similar source. See Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition,255 F.3d at 862-67. The Department must, accordingly, base its limits 

on the actual emissions of the best-controlled existing source; cost plays no role in that 

determination, nor does the ability of the proposed new source to meet the MACT floor. Id.

The draft permit‘s MACT limits are, in defiance of these rules, based on the permitapplicant‘s preferred control technology to satisfy BACT. The Department thereby ignored a 

variety of means of reducing the Plant‘s pollution – most notably, fuel-switching, or use of 

cleaner process methods. Rather than adhering to the Act‘s mandate to base its standards on, 

inter alia, ―measures which . . . reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, [hazardous] 

pollutants through process changes [or] substitution of materials.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). 

See Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d at 863.

 

23 PSD Permit Application for the Council Bluffs Energy Center Unit 4, September 25, 2005.
13

The Department's MACT analysis essentially equates MACT to BACT as to particulate 

matter and carbon monoxide. But MACT requirements are more stringent than BACT for at 

least the following reasons: 

(1) MACT establishes a floor that must be met, regardless of cost, energy, or 

environmental impacts while BACT considers these factors; 

(2) MACT is based on the best-controlled similar source while BACT is based on the 

lowest emission limit, the former encompassing a larger population of sources; 

(3) the MACT analysis can only consider non-air quality environmental impacts, while 

BACT considers all environmental impacts; and 

(4) MACT is based on "similar sources," where similar has been defined much more 

broadly than under BACT, bringing in a much larger universe of sources, including 

"transfer" technologies. See, e.g., 61 FR 68393-68394 (Dec. 27, 1996). 

As a result, as set forth later below, the Department has set MACT limits that exceed 

the HAP emissions of other, existing power plants. See Section I.D, below.

24

D. The Proposed Limits Do Not Represent The Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology.

As a result, in part, of the above-described failings, the Department‘s proposed MACT 

limits fail to meet the requirements of law. Individual limits for each pollutant are discussed 

below. For purposes of the Plant‘s limits, the group of plants that could provide the ―best 

controlled similar source‖ includes all electric-generating units burning coal of any type – and in 

some cases, the Department may be required to look beyond coal-burning plants. EPA‘s 

regulations define ―similar source‖ as follows:

[A] stationary source or process that has comparable emissions and is structurally

similar in design and capacity to a constructed or reconstructed major source such 

that the source could be controlled using the same control technology.

40 C.F.R. § 63.41 (emphasis added). In promulgating that definition, EPA observed that:

For purposes of section 112(g), two criteria should be used to determine if a 

source is similar: (1) whether the two sources have similar emission types, and (2) 

whether the sources can be controlled with the same type of control technology. 

61 Fed. Reg. at 68,394. 

 

24 Having failed to properly establish the MACT floor, the Statement of Basis also lacks any detailed discussion 

of the costs, benefits, and impacts of pollution controls superior to the MACT floor – what EPA calls the 

―beyond-the-floor‖ analysis. The Department must conduct such an analysis, in addition to the MACT-floor 

determination described above.
14

The rule-making discussion goes on to clarify that classification of ―emission types‖ 

should be based on the manner in which the source releases HAP – to distinguish, e.g., ―vent or 

stack discharges,‖ from ―[e]quipment leaks‖ or ―fugitive emissions,‖ and from ―evaporation and 

breathing losses.‖ Id.

The EPA believes that because the Act specifically indicates that existing source 

MACT should be determined from within the source category and does not make 

this distinction for new source MACT, that Congress intends for transfer 

technologies to be considered when establishing the minimum criteria [i.e., the 

MACT floor] for new sources. EPA believes that the use of the word ―similar‖ 

provides support for this interpretation. The EPA believes that Congress could 

have explicitly restricted the minimum level of control for new sources, but did 

not. The use of the term “best controlled similar source” rather than “best 

controlled source within the source category” suggests that the intent is to 

consider transfer technologies [across source categories] when appropriate.

61 Fed. Reg. 68,384-385 (emphasis added). 

In setting the MACT floor, and assessing potential beyond-the-floor reductions, 

therefore, the Department cannot ignore power plants burning alternative fuels. Nor can it ignore 

sources using control technologies that may be transferable to the Plant, or alternative 

combustion methods that may yield lower HAP emissions – in particular, the Department cannot 

ignore pulverized coal units, where such units are the ―best performing‖ similar source. The 

Clean Air Act includes ―process changes‖ and ―design‖ changes among the pollution-reduction 

methods that must be assessed as part of a MACT determination. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). The 

Department cannot, consequently, define the term ―similar source‖ to exclude such options –

especially since the U.S. EPA has concluded that the term ―similar source‖ is meant to broaden, 

rather than limit, the MACT-floor analysis. See 61 Fed. Reg. 63,384-385. Moreover, circulating 

fluidized bed (CFB) units (like the Plant) and pulverized coal units, in most instances, have the 

―same emissions types‖ and ―can be controlled with the same type of control technology.‖ Id. 

They meet, accordingly, the regulatory definition of ―similar source.‖ 40 C.F.R. 63.41. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has refused to set separate MACT 

standards for CFBs and pulverized coal units when setting Clean Air Act standards for electricgenerating units. See 69 Fed. Reg. 4,652, 4,657 (January 30, 2004); 70 Fed. Reg. 28,606, 

28,609-10 (May 18, 2005).

In setting a MACT limit, the Department should consider facility performance 

demonstrated by stack tests at existing sources. Source-wide MACT standards for other 

categories of sources have long been based on stack tests. See, e.g., 62 Fed. Reg., 960, 961 (Jan. 

7, 1997). Indeed, EPA has formally stated that stack tests suffice to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with HAP emissions limits. See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 55,217, 55, 224 (Sept. 13, 2004).

Concerns regarding emissions variability at particular sources, for specific pollutants,25 may be 

addressed by establishing longer averaging times, or using safety factors.

 

25

 The variability cited by the permit applicant derives mostly from the use of alternative, cleaner fuels – a 

pollution-reduction alternative that must be included in the MACT analysis. See Section II.A above.
15

In sum, the Department did not conduct a MACT analysis. The Statement of Basis does 

not identify any similar sources, does not make a MACT floor determination, and does not make 

a beyond-the-floor MACT determination. There is a large amount of information that could 

have and should have been used by the Department to make a MACT determination for Big 

Cajun I. This information includes stack tests conducted specifically to address the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990 for 130 HAPs at 16 separate coal-fired power plants burning a range 

of coals and using a range of pollution control trains (e.g., Exs. 20,26 21)27; stack tests conducted 

to determine compliance with HAP limits in permits; and MACT analyses performed by states 

before EPA delisted electric generating units. The Department should have used this and other 

information to make a case-by-case MACT determination for Big Cajun I.

The following sections identify existing similar sources that have been permitted with or 

are currently meeting lower emission levels than those proposed by the Department. 

1. Particulate Matter As A Surrogate For Non-Mercury Metallic HAPs 

MACT

The Department‘s proposed MACT limit for non-mercury metallic HAPs is a particulate 

matter emission limit of 0.011 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24 hour average as MACT for metallic 

HAPs. SOB at 5. By so doing the Department has, in essence, left the PSD permit‘s BACT 

emission limit for filterable PM/PM10 in place, and deemed it sufficient to satisfy Section 112 for 

metallic non-mercury HAP. This determination is based on the false premise that particulate 

matter can serve as a surrogate for all non-mercury metallic HAPs. SOB at 4-5. But even if 

particulate matter were an available surrogate for non-mercury metallic HAP, this emission limit 

does not satisfy MACT.

The proposed limit – 0.011 lb/MMBtu, on a 24-hour average – is well above the MACT 

floor. We reviewed a large number of permits and stack tests to determine the lowest filterable 

PM/PM10 emission rate that has been achieved in practice at a similar source. This review 

indicates that the two circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers located at the JEA Northside

facility in Florida (Ex 1028) routinely achieve a lower filterable PM/PM10 emission rate than 

proposed as MACT for Big Cajun I. Over fifty stack tests demonstrate a PM10 emission rate of 

0.006 lb/MMBtu and a PM emission rate of 0.09 lb/MMBtu, based on a 3-hour average over the 

period 2003 to 2008. Exhibit 1129 at 63 to 66. These tests include detailed performance tests 

while burning 100% Pittsburgh 8 coal (0.004 lb/MMBtu), a 50/50 blend of Pittsburgh 8 coal and 

coke (0.0041 lb/MMBtu), 100% Illinois 6 coal (0.0019 lb/MMBtu), and an 80/20 blend of coke 

and Pittsburgh 8 coal (0.0024 lb/MMBtu). Exhibit 1230 at 31-38; Exhibit 13;31 Exhibit 14.32 

 

26 Burns and Roe, Summary of Air Toxics Emissions Testing at Sixteen Utility Power Plants, Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, July 1996.

27 U.S. Department of Energy, A Comprehensive Assessment of Toxic Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants: 

Phase I Results from the U.S. Department of Energy Study, Final Report, September 1996.

28 U.S. Department of Energy, The JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project, March 2003.

29 Summary of Florida Stack Tests for Period 2003 - 2008.

30 Black & Veatch, Final Technical Report for the JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project, June 

24, 2005.
16

Similarly low particulate matter emission rates have been achieved at other circulating 

fluidized bed boilers including Northampton in Pennsylvania (0.0028, 0.0012 lb/MMBtu) 

burning waste coal (Exhibit 15,33 1634) and Gilbert Unit 3 (0.005 lb/MMBtu) in Kentucky 

burning bituminous coal at the Spurlock Station. Exhibit 18A.

35 Thus, the PM10 MACT floor 

should be no greater than 0.006 lb/MMBtu, based on a 3-hour average –half the emissions 

proposed by the Department as MACT. 

Furthermore, a detailed beyond-the-floor analysis could well yield a final MACT limit 

that is lower yet. Other control alternatives, including a wet electrostatic precipitator or a more 

efficient baghouse, could lower particulate matter emissions below the 0.006 lb/MMBtu floor.

Because metallic HAPs are found (if at all) in the 1 micron and smaller particles, any particulate 

matter surrogate should take the form of an emissions limit on the smallest particles that can be 

measured – particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Department must, therefore, focus its 

beyond-the-floor analysis on control methods that effectively limit PM2.5.36 

Big Cajun I will use a fabric filter baghouse to control PM10. The design basis of this 

baghouse is unknown and must be disclosed. The filtration media determines the control 

efficiency of a baghouse for very small particles. There is a wide range of media that can be 

used, most of which are much more efficient for larger particles than smaller particles. The 

media Ryton, for example, is commonly used in similar applications for PM control. This media 

removes 99.9% of larger particles, but operates at far lower efficiencies for the smaller particles 

where the HAP metals are concentrated. Thus, other media must be considered in a beyond-thefloor analysis. Filtration media are available that allow 99.99% of the PM2.5 fraction to be 

removed. These include Daikin‘s AMIREXTM, PTFE membrane filters37 and W.L. Gore‘s 

L3650.38 See summary of U.S. EPA‘s ETV test results in Exhibit 5A.39 A bag leak detection 

system also be considered as MACT.

Other technologies that control PM2.5 emission exist and are readily available today. For 

example, a wet electrostatic precipitator (―Wet ESP‖ or ―WESP‖) placed after a fabric filter 

 

31 Black & Veatch, Fuel Capability Demonstration Test Report 2 for the JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion 

Demonstration Project, 50:50 Blend Petroleum Coke and Pittsburgh 8 Coal Fuel, December 3, 2004.

32 Black & Veatch, Fuel Capability Demonstration Test Report 2 for the JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion 

Demonstration Project, 100% Pittsburgh 8 Fuel, September 3, 2004.

33 Source Test Review, Northampton Generating Co., July 19, 2001.

34 Bechtel Corp., Report on Emissions Testing, Northampton, PA, November 3, 1995.

35 Air Quality Testing Services, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., Spurlock Station, Gilbert Unit 3, 

Compliance Emissions Test Report, September 2, 2005.

36 The Department‘s MACT-floor analysis should likewise focus on fine particulates, for the reasons set forth earlier 

in these comments.

37 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Filter Media Selection for Coal-Fired Boilers, September 13, 2007, Presentation by 

Todd Brown, Daikin America, Inc. Voice recording available online to subscribers of McIlvaine Power Plant 

Knowledge System and available for purchase. 

38 USEPA, ETV Joint Verification Statement, Baghouse Filtration Products, W.L. Gore & Associates, L3650 .at 

http://epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv06042s.pdf.

39 Fabric Filtration Media are certified by the U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program using the 

―Generic Verification Protocol for Baghouse Filtration Products‖ to Achieve 99.99% Removal of PM2.5.
17

would eliminate significant amounts of PM2.5 emissions. Exhibit 5E.40 The EPA, and others, 

have recognized that Wet ESPs reduce PM2.5 emissions. Exs. 5B and 5C.41 Indeed, ―the WESP 

is the ultimate device capable of. . . removing ultrafine particles. Many industries are 

considering the WESP as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).‖ Exhibit 5B42

at 6-7. Examples of facilities using Wet ESP technology include: (1) Xcel Energy, Sherburne 

County, Units 1 and 2;

43 (2) First Energy, Mansfield, Unit 2; (3) Duke Power, Cliffside, Units 6 

and 7; (4) AES, Deepwater (operating since 1986) (Exhibit 5E at 9, 10); and (5) New Brunswick 

Power, Coleson Cove. Exhibit 5B at 644

In addition to the Wet ESP, other options are available to reduce PM2.5 emissions. For 

example, the EPA‘s Environmental Test Verification (ETV) program recently verified the 

performance of the ―Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector‖ (AHPC) system45 ―as providing the 

lowest filter outlet concentrations for both PM2.5 and total mass concentration.‖46 The AHPC 

system is installed at Otter Tail Power‘s Big Stone plant in South Dakota. Analyzing the 

performance of the system at that plant, the US Department of Energy explained that:

The Advanced HybridTM consists of alternating electrostatic precipitation and 

fabric filtration elements in a single casing to achieve exceptional removal of 

particulate matter (PM) in a compact unit. Very high removal is achieved by 

removing at least 90 percent of the PM before it reaches the fabric filter and using 

a membrane fabric to collect the particles that reach the filter surface. . . . 

Combining precollection with the ESP elements and membrane filter bags results 

 

40 See also Exhibit 5E at 9 (―A wet ESP placed after the fabric filter would eliminate up to 99% of the 130 tons of 

filterable PM2.5 emissions projected in the Highwood facility air permit. In addition, it would eliminate a similar 

percentage of the 161 tons of condensable PM that this unit will emit‖). Notably, the Wet ESP system ―has been in 

successful commercial operation since 1986.‖ 

41 ―Candidate Stationary and Area Control Measures,‖ Chicago PM2.5 Workshop, June 21, 2007, Tim Smith, 

USEPA at slide 15 (recognizing Wet ESP‘s as ―innovative PM2.5 controls)‖ available at 

http://earth1.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/presents/control_measures_stationary_and_area-tim_smith.ppt. See also

―Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Reductions by Improving Performance of Control Devices: Conclusions and 

Recommendations,‖ Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., EPA 

Contract No. 68-D-00-265 at 23 (September 30, 2005) available at 

http://www.epa.gov/pm/measures/pm25_recommend_2007.pdf (describing Wet ESP as an ―innovative control 

system‖ that ―yield[s] higher PM2.5 emissions reductions than the methods identified to improve existing control 

device performance‖); CIBO Industrial Emissions Control Technology II Conference, August 2 - 4, 2004 Portland, 

Maine at 6 (explaining that Wet ESP‘s are an effective control technology for PM2.5: ―There are no moving parts in 

a wet ESP. The [fine] particles never really reach the electrode and are constantly washed away by the water flow)‖ 

available at http://www.cibo.org/emissions/2004/summary.pdf.

42 Moretti et al., Application of Wet Electrostatic Precipitators to Address Fine Particulate Emission Requirements 

from Fossil-Fueled Combustors, ICAC 2005.

43 There are 24 WESP modules installed at this plant, 12 each on the two 750-MW units. Exhibit 5B at 4.

44 In 2002, New Brunswick Power elected to install high-efficiency WESPs following two new limestone-based, wet 

FGD scrubbers at its 1050-MW Coleson Cove station. Exhibit 5B at 6. 

45 Since its original development, the name of this technology has been changed to ―Advanced HybridTM.‖ The name 

was trademarked by W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. ―Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology,‖ U.S. Department of Energy (February 2007) available at 

http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/cctc/PPII/bibliography/demonstration/environmental/otter/PPA_Otte

r%20Tail_PPA_Final%20for%20Posting.pdf

46 EPA Test Program Verifies Performance of GORE® Filter Laminate (October 2006) available at 

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/news/epa_test_program_etv.html
18

in a small, economical unit that can achieve very high collection of all particle 

sizes.47

A 2005 report prepared for the EPA listed numerous innovative control techniques that 

yield high PM2.5 emissions reductions. Included in the list of controls are: (1) Compact Hybrid 

Particulate Collector (Exhibit 5C);48 (2) Indigo Particle Agglomerator (Exhibit 5C,49 5D,50 5F51); 

(3) Wet ESP (Exhibit 5G52); and (4) Wet Membrane ESP. Exhibit 5C.53 The Department did not 

consider any of these technologies for limiting PM2.5 emissions from Big Cajun I. 

2. CO as a Surrogate For Organic HAPs MACT

The Department established a carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit of 0.10 

lb/MMBtu, based on a 24 hour block average as, MACT for organic HAPs when the unit is 

operating at greater than or equal to 60% of its maximum steam production out capacity. SOB at 

4-5. The Department also established a CO emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu based on a 24-hour 

block average when the unit operates at less than 60% of its maximum steam production out 

capacity. SOB at 5. Again, in effect the Department has taken the Plant‘s BACT limits, and 

called them MACT limits. The Department apparently did not do a separate analysis for organic 

HAPs, but rather just assumed that BACT equals MACT. As discussed above, this 

determination is based on the false premise that CO can serve as a surrogate for organic HAP. 

SOB at 5. Regardless, even if CO were a reasonable surrogate for organic HAPs, the proposed

emission limits do not satisfy MACT.

We reviewed a large number of permits and stack tests to determine the lowest carbon 

monoxide emission rate that has been achieved in practice at a similar source. This review 

indicates that the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers located at the Cedar Bay facility in 

Florida routinely achieve a lower carbon monoxide emission rate than proposed as MACT for 

 

47 See ―Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit‖ at 12-13. 

48 The Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector (COHPAC) is ―a pulse jet filter module operated at a very high 

filtration velocity (air-to-cloth ratio), installed downstream of an ESP. The function of a COHPAC is as a ―polishing 

filter,‖ collecting the particulate (especially fine particulate) that escapes an ESP. A full-scale COHPAC system has 

been installed at the Gaston power plant near Birmingham, AL (Southern Company, 2004).‖ Ex. 5C at 26. 

49The Indigo Agglomerator was ―developed in Australia to reduce visible emissions from coal fired boilers. The 

Indigo Agglomerator contains two sections, a bipolar charger followed by a mixing section. The bipolar charger has 

alternate passages with positive or negative charging. That is, the even passages may be positive and the odd 

passages negative, or vice versa. This can be contrasted with a conventional coal fired boiler precipitator, which has 

only negative charging electrodes. Following the charging sections, a mixing process takes place, where the 

negatively charged particles from a negative passage are mixed with the positively charged particles from a positive 

passage. The close proximity of particles with opposite charges causes them to electrostatically attaché to each 

other. These agglomerates enter the precipitator, where they are easily collected due to their larger size.‖ Exhibit 5C 

at 26

50 Rodney Truce and others, Reducing PM2.5 Emissions Using the Indigo Agglomerator, Mega 2006.

51 Indigo Agglomerator: Reducing Particulate Emissions & Reducing, McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, November 3, 

2006.

52 Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc.,PM2.5 Control with Wet Electrostatic Precipitators, November 2, 2006.

53 The wet membrane ESP ―attempts to avoid problems of water channeling and resulting dry spots than can occur 

with wet ESPs, and avoiding the higher-cost metals that must be employed to avoid corrosion in a traditional wet 

ESP. The membranes are made from materials that transport flushing liquid by capillary action effectively removing 

collected material without spraying (Southern Environmental Corporation, 2004)." 
19

organic HAPs from Big Cajun I. Fifteen stack tests conducted between 2003 and 2008 

demonstrate that Cedar Bay achieved a carbon monoxide emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu based 

on a 3-hour average. These tests are summarized in the following table (see Exhibit 11 as 

summarized in Exhibit 19):

CEDAR BAY CO TEST 

RESULTS

CO

Unit Date lb/MMBtu

CBA 2/28/2006 0.022

CBA 2/22/2005 0.023

CBA 3/4/2003 0.063

CBA 2/20/2007 0.013

CBA 12/7/2007 0.0158

CBB 3/5/2003 0.03

CBB 2/23/2005 0.032

CBB 3/3/2004 0.032

CBB 2/21/2007 0.013

CBB 12/6/2007 0.0215

CBC 3/6/2003 0.051

CBC 2/24/2005 0.027

CBC 2/25/2005 0.027

CBC 3/4/2004 0.024

CBC 2/22/2007 0.014

The data indicates that these are far from anomalous emissions rates. Similarly low CO 

levels have been achieved at other circulating fluidized bed boilers. See Exhibits 11, 16, and 18. 

These include at the JEA Northside circulating fluidized bed boiler, where detailed performance 

tests were conducted for a range of fuels and at loads of from 40% to 100%. These data are 

summarized in the following table (see Exhibit 12):
20

JEA NORTHSIDE CO TEST RESULTS

CO

Load Fuel Date lb/MMBtu

100% 100% Pitts 1/13/2004 0.026

1/14/2004 0.027

100% 50/50 Pitt/Coke 1/27/2004 0.015

1/28/2008 0.016

100% 100% Illn 6 6/8/2004 0.0198

6/9/2004 0.024

100% 80/20 Coke/Pitt 8/10/2004 0.0127

8/11/2004 0.0081

80% 100% Pitts 1/15/2004 0.044

60% 1/16/2004 0.118

40% 1/16/2004 0.053

80% 50/50 Pitt/Coke 1/29/2004 0.024

60% 0.0276

40% 0.08

80% 100% Illn 6 6/9/2004 0.031

60% 6/8/2004 0.0338

40% 6/9/2004 0.138

80% 80/20 Coke/Pitt 8/12/2002 0.0147

60% 8/13/2004 0.0218

Thus, the CO MACT floor limit for operation at greater than 60% load is no greater than 

0.05 lb/MMBtu based on a 3-hour average, the highest reported CO value over the period 2003 

to 2008. This is about half of the value (0.10 lb/MMBtu) proposed by the Department as a 

MACT limit for organic HAPS. That limit should apply for all loads; Section 112 does not allow 

the Department to establish separate limits to accommodate the facility-owner‘s preferred 

operating methods, where a different method would result in substantially lower HAP emissions. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1) (allowing permitting agency to distinguish only among ―classes, 

types, and sizes of sources‖ within a category or subcategory) & 2(specifically including 

―process changes‖ and ―operational standards‖ within pollution-reduction methods that must be 

required, if available, as MACT). 

Even if a separate low-load MACT limit was permissible, the data suggests that the 

proposed low load CO limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu is too high. The partial load test results at JEA 

Northside indicate that a CO emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu can be met at loads of 60% and 

below when firing all combinations of fuel except for 100% Illinois 6. Thus, if the Department 
21

retains CO as a surrogate for organic HAPs (and we believe this choice is not justified), the 

MACT floor is no higher than 0.05 lb/MMBtu for all loads.

The Department must also conduct a beyond-the-floor analysis, assessing, inter alia,

whether combustion optimization and NOx controls might allow for lower HAP emissions than 

.05 lb/MMBtu, on a 3-hour average. Carbon monoxide and NOx are inversely related. In other 

words, as carbon monoxide decreases (as required to meet CO), the NOx concentration 

increases. This is due to two factors. First, increases in temperature reduce CO, but increase 

NOx. Exhibit 45.54 Second, as discussed above, the NOx control method selected for Big Cajun 

I, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) causes CO emissions to increase. The lowest CO 

levels would be achieved using selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which does not increase CO. 

A beyond-the-floor MACT analysis for CO as a surrogate for organic HAPs must consider these 

options. This would require that the netting analysis for NOx be revisited, as the Plant as 

currently configured could not satisfy a CO-based surrogate MACT limit for organic HAP 

without increasing its NOx emissions to exceed the significance threshold.

3. MACT For Individual HAPs.

The Department established MACT limits for three individual HAPs -- hydrogen 

chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury. It failed to establish MACT limits for the other 186 

HAPs. There is a wealth of information that could have and should have been used to establish 

MACT for other individual HAPs, as discussed below. As set forth above in section II.A, the law 

requires a MACT limits for every HAP emitted by the Plant. 

a. Hydrogen chloride

The Department established a MACT limit for hydrogen chloride (also called 

hydrochloric acid) of 0.0035 lb/MMBtu. This is not MACT for hydrogen chloride. With 

respect to establishing the MACT floor, other states have performed MACT analyses for similar 

sources and concluded that MACT is much lower than proposed here for Big Cajun I. Kentucky 

established a MACT limit for hydrogen chloride of 0.000825 lb/MMBtu in October 2002 for a 

bituminous coal fired pulverized coal fired boiler, a similar source. Exhibit 22.55 Stack testing 

indicates that similar sources routinely achieve lower hydrogen chloride emissions. The Gilbert 

Unit 3 circulating fluidized bed boiler achieved a hydrogen chloride emission level of less than 

0.000056 lb/MMBtu while burning bituminous coal. Exhibit 18A, p. 3, Table 4. Holcomb Unit 

1, a pulverized coal fired boiler that burns Power River Basin coal, tested at 0.000799 

lb/MMBtu. Exhibit 23.56 The U.S. Department of Energy measured hydrogen chloride 

emissions from 16 different coal burning boilers, including with and without various control 

options, such as reburn, low NOx burners and selective noncatalytic reduction. This study 

demonstrated that several of the facilities emitted lesser amounts of hydrogen chloride (less than 

0.0016 lb/MMBtu) than proposed here, over a decade later, as MACT. These include Boswell 

(0.0011 lb/MMBtu), Springerville (less than 0.000176 lb/MMBtu), Yates (0.000742 lb/MMBtu), 

 

54 Prabir Basu, Combustion and Gasification in Fluidized Beds, Taylor & Francis, 2006, pp. 159-167.

55 Title V Air Quality Permit, Thoroughbred Generating Station, Revision 2, February 17, 2005.

56 Burns & McDonnell, Source Emissions Test Report for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Holcomb Station, 

Unit 1, May 2002.
22

Bailly (0.00102 lb/MMBtu), Burger using SNCR (0.00077 lb/MMBtu), Arapahoe uncontrolled 

(0.000630 lb/MMBtu), Arapahoe using SNCR (0.000720 lb/MMBtu), and Shawnee using lime 

injection with fabric filters (less than 0.000073 lb/MMBtu). Exhibit 20, Table 2-6.2, pp. 44-45.

Furthermore, the Department apparently did not consider beyond-the-floor controls. 

Hydrogen chloride would be controlled by the lime spray dryer in conjunction with a baghouse, 

the controls designated for SO2 control. Spray dryers remove 95-99% of the hydrogen chloride 

if properly designed. Exhibit 21, p. 4-49; Exhibit 25,57 Table 2-5.58 In addition, the proposed 

scrubber is designed to remove only about (50%) of the SO2. The amount of hydrogen chloride 

removed by the spray dryer depends on the SO2 control efficiency. Lime spray dryers are 

routinely designed to remove 90% up to 95% of the SO2. Exhibit 24.59 Thus, the Department 

has not considered beyond-the-flow controls for hydrogen chloride, which are cost effective and 

have no adverse energy, economic, or environmental impacts.

Next, the Statement of Basis does not report the design basis coal chlorine content, which 

is essential to determine whether MACT has been required. MACT must correspond to the 

maximum degree of reduction that is achievable. This can only be determined if the design basis 

chlorine content is known. Under the permit, the applicant could burn fuel (such as coke) with a 

much lower chlorine content and still meet the MACT limit, while achieving a much lower 

control efficiency. Thus, the permit should specify a control efficiency.

b. MACT For Hydrogen Fluoride

The Department also established a MACT limit for hydrogen fluoride (also called 

hydrofluoric acid) of 0.000044 lb/MMBtu). This is not MACT for hydrogen fluoride.

First, West Virginia issued a permit for the Longview facility, which will burn 

bituminous coal, with a hydrogen fluoride limit of 0.00001 lb/MMBtu (Ex. 26J). Second, stack 

testing indicates that similar sources routinely achieve lower hydrogen fluoride emissions. The 

JEA Northside circulating fluidized bed boiler tested at less than 0.0000309 lb/MMBtu while 

burning 100% Pittsburgh 8 coal; at 0.0000169 lb/MMBtu while burning a 50:50 blend of coke 

and Pittsburgh 8 coal; and at less than 0.0000053 lb/MMBtu while burning a blend of 80% coke 

and 20% Pittsburgh 8 coal. Exhibit 12, pp. 31-38. Third, a U.S. Department of Energy study 

demonstrated that the Burger facility using SNCR achieved 0.000039 lb/MMBtu and Shawnee,

using lime injection with fabric filters, achieved less than 0.000023 lb/MMBtu. Exhibit 20, 

Table 2-6.2, pp. 44-45. 

Finally, the Statement of Basis does not report the design basis for fluorine content, 

which is essential to determine whether MACT has been required. MACT must correspond to 

the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable. This can only be determined if the design 

basis fluorine content is reported. The applicant could burn fuel (such as coke) with a much 

 

57 Electric Power Research Institute, Emission Factor Handbook.

58 The coke control efficiency is irrelevant as the Applicant and the Department did not report any chlorine data for 

coke.

59 Sargent & Lundy, Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation, Dry Lime vs. Wet Limestone FGD, March 

2007.
23

lower fluorine content and still meet the MACT limit, while achieving a much lower control 

efficiency. Thus, the permit should specify a control efficiency.

c. Mercury MACT

The Department established MACT limits for mercury for three separate fuels: (a) 

bituminous coal (0.008 lb/GWh); (b) petroleum coke (0.003 lb/GWh); and (c) subbituminous 

coal (0.005 lb/GWh).60 Compliance is determined using a mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring system on a 12-month rolling average basis. SOB at 5. These limits would be met 

using activated carbon injection in conjunction with a baghouse. SOB at 4. This is not MACT 

for mercury.

The basis for the Department's mercury MACT determination is not disclosed in the 

Statement of Basis. The Department's decision fails to identify the mercury floor (e.g., a specific 

source and achieved mercury level), fails to make a beyond-the-floor determination, and fails to 

disclose the design basis of the proposed controls (e.g., control efficiency, PAC injection rate in 

lb/SCF, uncontrolled mercury levels). This information is required to determine MACT. Thus, 

our ability to comment on the proposed mercury MACT limit is limited by the lack of adequate 

information. The Department should disclose the entire basis for its mercury MACT 

determination, correct the errors we identify below, consider the additional information 

identified below, revise its determination, and recirculate the revised determination for public 

review.

i. Clean Fuels Is a Control Option

The MACT floor should be the lowest limit that is achievable, regardless of fuel, as fuel 

selection is one of the controls for HAPs. Therefore, the MACT floor should be no higher than 

0.003 lb/Gwh, the mercury MACT limit set for petroleum coke. 

ii. Pulverized Coal-Fired Boilers And Circulating 

Fluidized Bed Boilers are Similar Sources

The entire universe of coal-fired boilers should have been considered as similar sources. 

The EPA concluded in the May 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which set New Source 

Performance Standards for mercury, that all coal-fired boilers are created equal, except as to 

fluidized bed combustors firing waste coal. However, for all other fuels: "there was no clear 

indication from the available data that such units influenced the ultimate Hg control. That is, in 

some cases, FBC [fluidized bed combustion] units were better than most with respect to their Hg 

emissions; in other cases, FBC units were worse than most." 70 FR 28613 (May 18, 2005. 

Thus, EPA set mercury New Source Performance Standards that applied to all boilers, including 

pulverized coal-fired boilers and circulating fluidized bed boilers. Thus, the Department should 

 

60 The unit of measure, pounds per gigawatt hour ("lb/GWh"), divided by 1000 equals pounds per megawatt hour 

("lb/MWh"). The unit of measure lb/GWh multiplied by 100x106, equals pounds per trillion Btu ("lbTBtu"). These 

three units of measures are all commonly used for mercury. All three are used to convert units from various permits 

and stack tests to the same basis as reported here for mercury MACT. 
24

have considered the wealth of information on mercury emissions and controls developed for 

pulverized coal-fired sources, some of which is summarized below. 

iii. Relevant Information Not Considered

There is additional information, not obviously considered by the Department, which 

indicates that MACT for mercury emissions from Big Cajun I is an emission limit lower than 

0.003 lb/GWh, the limit proposed just for petroleum coke. 

The 1999 U.S. EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) to implement the mercury 

MACT, summarized in Exhibit 36, shows that the top 12 percent of EXISTING sources emitted 

of 0.0019 lb/GWh (0.19 lb/TBtu). As Big Cajun I is a NEW unit, it is expected to do much better 

than the average of the existing top 12 percent of the units NINE YEARS AGO in year 1999. All 

of the three limits included in Big Cajun I permit for Hg (0.008, 0.003 and 0.005 lb/GWh) are 

higher than what was being achieved by many existing units. In fact, three units in the  ̳top 10‖ 

units in the 1999 EPA ICR data are circulating fluidized bed units: Kline Township Cogen 

Facility at 0.0008176 lb/GWh (0.0816 lb/TBtu); Scrubgrass Generation Company at 0.0009 

lb/GWh (0.09 lb/TBtu), and Stockton Cogen Company at 0.0002466 lb/GWh (0.2466 lb/TBtu). 

All of these existing units had achieved lower Hg rates than what is being proposed for a brand 

new circulating fluidized bed boiler at Big Cajun I.

There are many other tests on coal refuse fired circulating fluidized bed boilers that were 

conducted after the 1999 Information Collection Request. Coal refuse is relevant to this inquiry 

because coal refuse has been defined to include petroleum coke (70 FR 28652 (May 18, 2005), 

which is a fuel that may be burned at the facility. Coal refuse stack tests that found less mercury 

than required as MACT for petroleum coke are summarized below:

Plant Unit Date Hg

(lb/GWh)

Ex.

Big Cajun I 0.005

Piney 1 1999 0.00071 37

Scrubgrass 1 2005 0.00247 38

Clover 1 0.00247 39

Panther 1 2004 0.000455 40

2 2004 0.000171

Ebensburg 1 2004 0.000323 41

2 2004 0.000387

3 2004 0.00259

Ebensburg 1 2005 0.00727 42

2 2005 0.00227

3 2005 0.00189

We urge the Department to revisit the stack test data reported in the MACT Application 

and other such data attached to these comments.
25

iv. A Beyond-the-Floor MACT Analysis Was 

Not Conducted

The MACT Application and Statement of Basis do not contain a beyond-the-floor 

MACT analysis or the information required to prepare one. At a minimum, the following 

information must be supplied to support a beyond-the-floor MACT analysis:

design basis mercury content of each fuel that is proposed;

uncontrolled mercury emission rate;

design basis of the activated carbon system, including control efficiency and carbon 

injection rate;

design basis of the spray dryer absorbed and baghouse.

 The mercury control efficiency represented by the proposed mercury MACT standards is 

unknown. In our opinion, 99% mercury control has been achieved and is achievable for the 

subject units using bromiated activated carbon, the ReACT technology, or other technologies 

that are currently available. Exs. 43 and 45.

For example, packed beds of sorbent material, typically carbon, have been used in Japan 

and Germany to remove mercury, dioxins, and other HAPs from a wide range of combustion 

sources, including coal-fired power plants. One such technology is the J-Power Regenerative 

Activated Coke Technology or ReACT process. This is a multi-pollutant control technology 

intended for installation downstream of a particulate control device. It removes SO2, NOX, 

mercury, dioxins, other HAPs, and particulate matter. It uses a moving bed of activated coke 

pellets that is continuously removed and thermally regenerated, producing a concentrated SO2

stream for sulfur recovery, either as sulfuric acid or gypsum. The process was demonstrated in 

2007 on a 2.5 MW slip stream at the 250-MW Valmy Generating Station in Nevada on both subbituminous and bituminous coals. The Valmy demonstration reported SO2 removal of 98->99%, 

NOX removal of 26-48%, and mercury removals of 97->99%. Exh. 43.61 

ReACT has been installed on 14 commercial units to date, including 4 coal-fired utility 

boilers. These are in Japan and Europe. The technology has been in operation at the 350 MW 

Takehara Unit 2 since 1995 and the 600 MW Isogo Unit 1 since 2002. A 600 MW unit is 

currently under construction at Isogo Unit 2. Isogo Unit 1 has achieved greater than 98% SO2

removal, 10-50% NOX removal, greater than 95% particulate removal, and greater than 90% 

mercury removal. Exhibit 43, Table 7. "Commercial installations located in Japan and Germany 

operate at 90-99% SO2 removal, with SO2 inlet concentrations as high as 1300 ppm SO2." 

Exhibit 43, p. 14.

d. Other HAPS

 

61 C. Dene, J. Gilbert, K. Jackson, and S. Miyagawa, ReACT Process Demonstration at Valmy Generating Station, 

Mega 2008.
26

The Department did not set limits on any other individual HAPs besides hydrogen 

chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury. However, it is feasible to set separate limits for 

individual HAPs. We are aware of several permits that have established limits on many more 

HAPs than in the Big Cajun I permit, including Longview (Ex. 26J) and Thoroughbred (Ex, 22),

II. The Department Must Reopen Louisiana Generating’s PSD and Title V Permits 

Because The Permits Fail to Meet Requirements of The Clean Air Act and State Air 

Laws. 

A. The Law On Reopening Air Permits.

Louisiana‘s air regulation provides that any permit pertaining to a Part 70 source ―shall 

be reopened and revised . . . . [where an] additional federally applicable requirement is newly 

promulgated and is applicable to a major Part 70 source for which three or more years remain 

before expiration of the permit.‖ La. Admin. Code tit. III § 529.B. Therefore, the Department 

was required to reopen the Permit to address MACT requirements. Moreover, since the MACT 

analysis affects other portions of the Permit (as discussed below), the Department must likewise 

reopen and revise those portions affected by the MACT analyses and determination. 

In addition, the regulations also provide that the Department may reopen and revise any 

Title V or PSD permit prior to the expiration of such permits if any person demonstrates to the 

Department that:

[T]he permit contains a material mistake, that inaccurate statements were made in 

establishing the terms of or conditions of the permit, or that the permit must be 

revised to assure compliance with any federally applicable requirement or any 

applicable provision of LAC 33:III, Air Quality Regulations.

La. Admin. Code tit. III § 529.A. 

Louisiana Generating‘s Title V and PSD permits contain material mistakes and 

violate federal and state law requirements. Accordingly, commenters urge the 

Department to reopen those permits to address climate change to assure compliance with 

the applicable Clean Air Act and its regulations, as well as the Louisiana Air Control Law 

and state air regulations. Commenters also urge the Department, as explained below, to 

reopen Louisiana Generating‘s permit to correct material mistakes made to determine the 

best available control technology and emission limits for carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, and other regulated pollutants. 

B. The Department Must Revisit Its PSD Determinations in Light of the MACT 

Process.

Until a case-by-case MACT review has been conducted – or at the very least until the 

Department has performed a meaningful assessment of the likely implications of MACT-related 
27

hazardous air pollutant (―HAP‖) emission limits – the Department has no way of assessing how 

the technology-forcing MACT requirements may affect the proposed plant‘s ability to control 

PSD pollutants. The technologies prescribed to meet MACT may allow for far greater costeffective reductions in criteria pollutants than may have been true when the Department first 

issued the Plant‘s PSD permit. Or changes in fuels required pursuant to MACT may necessitate 

entirely different pollution-control methods as BACT. Or the MACT limits may affect the 

emissions calculations that were the basis of the Department‘s earlier PSD analysis.

The Department cannot issue a legally sufficient PSD permit without meaningfully 

evaluating the potential implications of the Department‘s MACT determination on appropriate 

level of control under PSD, and providing an opportunity for public comment on that evaluation. 

The Clean Air Act requires the Department to include compliance with ―any other applicable 

emission standard or standard of performance‖ – including the standards of Section 112 – in its 

PSD analysis. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3)(C). The Department must, accordingly, re-open the Plant‘s 

PSD permit to assess the impacts of the Plant‘s MACT limits on its PSD determinations.

Both MACT and BACT determinations are inherently technology-based, and technologyforcing in the broadest sense of that term, potentially affecting not just add-on control 

technology, but process technology, raw inputs, fuel quality, fuel mix, operational parameters, 

work practices, etc. Thus, the impact of one regulatory program on these ―technology‖ choices 

for the project necessarily will have implications for what is achievable or appropriate under the 

other program. 

The MACT process is a more rigorous exercise than PSD‘s BACT requirements, with a 

more stringent set of technology-forcing criteria. See above. As a result of these fundamental 

differences between MACT and BACT, and the clearly more stringent nature of MACT analysis, 

the Department cannot conduct a reasonably complete PSD analysis without considering, to 

some significant degree, what will (or is likely to be) required by MACT. 

By performing the MACT and PSD analyses in isolation, the Department has essentially 

allowed its PSD limits to determine its MACT limits. Indeed, the Department‘s MACT limits 

simply re-state the Plant‘s BACT limits. That approach violates the law. The Clean Air Act 

explicitly states, ―In no event shall application of ―best available control technology‖ result in 

emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard 

established pursuant to section 7411 or 7412 of this title‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3); see also 42 

U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3)(C). Moreover, the Department‘s approach deprives the public of an 

opportunity to comment upon critical elements of the agency‘s decision-making process – the 

potential interactions between the two programs, and the trade-offs the Department has made 

between them. 

The Department should re-open its PSD permit, and allow the public an opportunity to 

comment on the agency‘s decision and its underlying technical and policy rationale.62 

 

62 Aside from depriving the public of the ability to comment on its MACT-related decisionmaking, the Department‘s 

failure to perform any real evaluation of MACT, or the interaction between MACT and PSD, has denied the permit 

decisionmaker information necessary to make a reasonable and well informed decision.