T ULANE E NVIRONMENTAL L AW C LINIC

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 2 26 0

- 0000 7

- V2

A ctivity Number PER 20080001

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, Alli ance 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 2 26 0

- 0000 7

- 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

th e 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 whe re no applicable

emission limitations hav e 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 unle ss and

until Louis iana 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 s tandards f or 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, in cluding 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 D epartment 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 t he 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 Congres s 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 wides pread 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 wo men 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 d escribed 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 harmful3

pollutants, and regulatory agencies that had persistently failed to address them

– resulted in a legal framework that demands strict limitations and provides agencies wi th 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 Emissio ns 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 leve ls 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 evid ence that high levels of mercury result in fatal

and non

- fatal heart attacks among adult males 2 Arsenic, chromium, dioxin and beryl lium are all likely carcinogens, i d

. a t 79,827 , a nd 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) dete rmines‖ 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 conside ration 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,‖ est ablishing 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, 13 25 (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 Caju n 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 20054

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 desig n, 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 e mitted 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, 3 hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Envtl. Services, Statement of Basis Big Cajun I Power Plant , Lou isiana 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).

3 The draft permit recognizes that mercury and its compound s 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 ar bitrarily identify a surrogate without specifically linking the surrogate with each HAP that it is intended to represent. See Mossville Envt l

. 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 onl y 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 Ad equate 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 a ll consistently present in particulate matter (that is, the particulates that arrive at the inlet to the particulate control device). Exhibit 3A 5 at 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 t he 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 demonstrate d 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 surrogat e 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 wi thout 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 Capt ure 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, 8 3B. 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

- me tallic 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 MA CT 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 PM 10 emission limit of 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Statement of Basis at 4

- 5. The particulate colle ction efficiency for conventional baghouses designed to collect PM 10 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 sma ller particles) to escape. Exhibit 4A, 11 Exhibit 4B 12 at 1582. A fabric filter system designed to meet BACT for PM, as is

7 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Hazardous Air Po llutants, 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 Coa l 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. 1 3, December 1974, pp. 1107

- 1113 (Exhibit 2A); E.S. Gladney and others, Composition and Size Distribution of In

State 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

- 9 53 (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, Compi lation 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 im pacts 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 PM 2.5 , which is a better surrogate for

metallic HAPs than PM or PM 10

.

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 emiss ions 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 cor responding 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 t hey 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 matte r 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 p articulate 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

- rela ted inputs on metallic HAP emissions differs from such inputs‘ effect on particulate matter for three reasons. First, the ash 13 content of the coal used as a fuel determines the particulate matter concentration in a plant‘s flue gases. Ex. 49A. 14 The

summa ry 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 concentratio ns 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 K enneth 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 f rom 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 r epresented 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 8 15 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 bot tom 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 mic ron 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 , t he 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 ar e 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 larges t surface area

. Thus,

p articulate 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 Emission s 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 t o 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 PM 2.5 rather than total particulates or PM 10 . T hird, surrogate limits must be continuously monitored, and serve as a continuous indicator of HAP emissions. LDEQ m ust include monitoring methods that accurately measures PM 2.5

. F inally, any surrogate emission limit for metallic HAPs must be expressed in mass

- based limits for PM 2.5 (for example,

in units of mass of PM 2.5 in lb per million Btu input or in lbs per GW

- h r 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

C arbon Monoxide is not an adequate surrogate for organic HAP. First, organic HAP s are not ―present‖ in CO at all. Carbon monoxide emissions indicate incomple te combustion, and thus provide an indicator of whether a facility is operating at a high combusti on rate. Such an ―operational standard‖ may be substituted for limits o n 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. Con trol 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

at m osphere. Thus, filt erable 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

con densable 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 form ed 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, f or 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 above

described HAP s

.

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 re duction 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 t emperature. 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 E ngineers' 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 Persp ectives, 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, Experimen ts, 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 (n atural 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 emissi ons. 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

ve ry 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 Pl ant‘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

requ ired 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 Plan t‘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 short

time average (of the order of one hour). Organic HAP s 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 ag ainst 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‖ f or 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 Bed s, Taylor & Francis, 2006,12

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

control that is achieved i n 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

indiv idual 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 performin g 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 em issions. 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 bas ed 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 actu al 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 permit

applicant‘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 follow ing 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 limi t, the former encompassing a large r 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 e xceed 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 de sign 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 1 12(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 Depart ment must conduct such an analysis, in addition to the MACT

- floor

determination described above.14

The rule

- ma king 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 ―evapor ation 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 expli citly 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 a lternative 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‖ chan ges 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 conc luded 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

―sam e 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 sepa rate MACT standards for CFBs and pulverized coal units when setting Clean Air Act standards for electric

generating 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, t he Depa r tment 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 ha s 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 in cluded 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 no t 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 HAP s 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/PM 10 in place, and deemed it sufficient to satisfy Section 112 for

metallic non

- mercury HAP. T his determination is based on the false premise that particulate matter can serve as a surrogate for all non

- mercury metallic HA Ps. 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 l arge number of permits and stack tests to determine the lowest filterable

PM/PM 10 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 10 28 ) routinely achieve a lower filterable PM/PM 10 emission rate than proposed as MACT for Big Cajun I . Over fifty stack tests demonstrate a PM 10 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 11 29 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 12 30 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 Tox ic 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 includi ng Northampton in Pennsylvania (0.0028, 0.0012 lb/MMBtu) burning waste coal (Exhibit 15, 33 16 34 ) and Gilbert Unit 3 (0.005 lb/MMBtu) in Kentucky burning bituminous coal at the Spurlock Station. Exhibit 18 A

. 35 Thus, the PM 10 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 elec trostatic precipitator or a more efficient baghouse, could lower particulate matt er 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 th e form of an emissions limit on the smallest particles that can be

measured

– particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ). The Department must, therefore, focus its beyond

- the

- floor analysis on control methods that effectively limit PM2.5. 36

Big Cajun I w ill use a fabric filter baghouse to control PM 10 . 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 b e 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 effi ciencies for the smaller particles where the HAP metals are concentrated. Thus, other media must be considered in a beyond

- the

floor analysis. Filtration media are available that allow 99.99% of the PM2.5 fraction to be

removed. These include Daikin‘s A MIREX TM , PTFE membrane filters 37 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 t echnologies that control PM 2.5 emission exist and are r eadily 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

Demons tration 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, Comp liance 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 Boile rs, 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 PM 2.5 emissions. Exhibit 5E. 40 The EPA, and others, have recognized that Wet ESPs reduce PM 2.5 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 5B 42

at 6

- 7. Examples of facilitie s 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

Pow er, Coleson Cove

. Exhibit 5B at 6 44

In addition to the Wet ESP, other options are available to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. For example, the EPA‘s Environmental Test Verification (ETV) program recently verified the performance of the ― Advanced Hybrid Particul ate Collector‖ (AHPC) system 45 ―as providing the

lowest filter outlet concentrations for both PM 2.5 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 p ercent 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: ―T here are n o 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 Precipita tors 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/de monstration/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.html18

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

sizes. 47

A 2005 report prepared for the EPA listed numerous innovative control techniques that yield high PM 2.5 emissions reductions. Included in the list of controls are: (1) Compact Hybrid

Particulate C ollector (Exhibit 5C); 48 (2) Indigo Particle Agglomerator (Exhibit 5C, 49 5D, 50 5F 51 ); (3) Wet ESP (Exhibit 5G 52 ); and (4) Wet Membrane ESP. Exhibit 5C. 53 The Department did not consider any of these technologies for limiting PM 2.5 emissions from Big Cajun I

.

2. CO a s 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 uni t operates at less than 60% of its maximum steam pro duction out capacity. SOB at 5. Again, in effect the Department has taken the Plant‘s BACT limit s, 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. A s 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 p roposed

emission limit s 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 f luidized 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 COHPA C 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.

49 The Indigo A gglomerator 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 m ixing 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 attac hé 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: R educing 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 wat er 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 act ion 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 C edar 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 Exh ibit 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 De partment 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 st andards‖ 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 tes t 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 Department21

retains CO as a surrogate for organic HAPs (and we b elieve 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 lowe r 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 i n 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 se lective 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

current ly 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 t o 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 chlorid e (also called hydrochloric acid ) of 0.0035 lb/MMBtu. This is not MACT for hydrogen chloride. With respect to establishing the MACT floor, o ther 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 S tack testing

indicates that similar sources rout inely 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 contro l 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 MAC T. 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 Be ds, Taylor & Francis, 2006, pp. 159

- 167.

55 Title V Air Quality Permit, Thoroughbred Generat ing 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 l b/MMBtu), and Shawnee using lime injection with fabric filters (less than 0.000073 lb/MMBtu). Exhibit 20, Table 2

- 6.2, pp. 44

- 45.

F urthermore, 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 Depart ment 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 ba sis

chlorine content is known

. Under the permit, t he applicant could burn fue l (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

T he Department also established a MACT limit for hydrogen fluoride (also called hydro fluoric acid) of 0.000 04 4 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 e missions. 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 l b/MMBtu and Shawnee

, using lim e injection with fabric filter s, 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 cou ld burn fuel (such as coke) with a much

57 Electric Power Research Institute, Emission Factor Handbook.

58 The coke control effi ciency 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 li mits 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 rol ling 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

Stateme nt 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., contro l 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 shou ld 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. T herefore, the MACT floor should be no higher than 0.003 lb/Gwh, the mercury MACT limit set f or 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 Merc ury 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 availabl e 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 100x10 6 , equals pounds per trillion Btu ("lbTBtu"). These

three units of measures are all comm only 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 D epartment, 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.

T he 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 mu ch 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 t han 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 circulati ng 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 bur ned 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 mercur y 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 ex ample, p acked 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 Regener ative Activated Coke Technology or ReACT process. This is a multi

- pollutant control technology intended for installation downstream of a particulate control device. It removes SO 2 , NO X , mercury, dioxins, other HAPs, and particulate matter. It uses a mov ing bed of activated coke pellets that is continuously removed and thermally regenerated, producing a concentrated SO 2 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

- M W Valmy Generating Station in Nevada on both sub

bituminous and bituminous coals. The Valmy demonstration reported SO 2 removal of 98

- >99%,

NO X 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% SO 2 removal, 10

- 50% NO X 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 % SO 2 removal, with SO 2 inlet concentrations as high as 1300 ppm SO 2 ." Exhibit 43, p. 14.

d. Other HAPS

61 C. Dene, J. Gilbert, K. Jackson, and S. Miyagawa, ReACT Process Demonstration at Valmy Generating Sta tion, Mega 2008.26

The Department did not set limits on any other individual HAPs besides hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury. However, it is feasibl e 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 thr ee 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 t he 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 fed eral 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 a ir 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,

n itrogen 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

- related27

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 cost

effective reductions in criteria pollutants than may have bee n 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 bas is of the Dep artment‘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 provi ding 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 analys is. 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 technology

f orcing 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 the se ―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 significa nt 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 applicabl e 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 dec ision

- 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 i nformation necessary to make a reasonable and well informed decision.