# BART TSD - Texas

Prepared by:

Erik M. Snyder

EPA Region 6

Dallas, TX

November 2014

### Page i

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

# Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... ii

A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requireme nts: 40 CFR 51.308(e) ....................... 1

B. BART Eligible Source Identifica tion: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) .................................................. 2

Texas Source Survey ........................................................................................................... ........ 4

C. Determination of Sources Subject to BART .............................................................................. 15

C-1 Cumulative Screening Modeling Usi ng CAMx PSAT and Source Grouping ........................ 15

Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................. ..... 16

Procedures For VOC and PM Emissi ons BART Screening Analysis ...................................... 22

VOC SCREENING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 34

Inert Primary PM Screening Analysis ...................................................................................... 35

C-2 Model Plant Screening Approach .......................................................................................... 5 8

NO X 

### and SO 2 

### Model Plant Approach and Screening ............................................................... 59

PM Model Plant Approach and Screening................................................................................ 63

EPA SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... .. 64

D. Single Source Analysis ........................................................................................................ ..... 67

D-1 CALPUFF Modeling .......................................................................................................... ... 67

CALPUFF Modeling Using CENRAP with No-OBS CALMET data ..................................... 67

CALPUFF Modeling Using Refi ned CALMET with OBS (pursuant to TCEQ refined

CALPUFF modeling protocol) ................................................................................................. 70

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ....... 73

D-2 Source Specific CAMx Modeling ......................................................................................... 76

E. Post-BART Emissions Reductions /Removal of Facilities ........................................................ 78

F. Summary ....................................................................................................................... ............ 81

### Page ii

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

# GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

BAND Bandelier

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology

BIBE Big Bend

bnatural Clean Natural Conditions

BOAP Bosque del Apache

BRET Breton

bsource Total light extin ction due to a source

CAA Clean Air Act

CACR Caney Creek

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CALPUFF California Puff Model

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions

CCRS Coarse Crustal particulate matter

CENRAP Central Regional Air Planning Association

CMAQ Community Multiscale Ai r Quality Modeling System

CPRM Coarse other Primary particulate matter

del-dv change in deci view (delta-deciview)

dv deciviews

EC Elemental Carbon

EGU Electric Generating Units

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

f(RH) Relative Humidity adjustment factor

FCRS Fine Crustal particulate matter

FLAG Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup

FLM Federal Land Manager

FPRM Fine other Primary particulate matter

FR Federal Register

GREASD Greatly Reduced and Simplified Dynamics

GRSA Great Sand Dunes

GUMO Guadalupe Mountains

HEGL Hercules-Glade

Hg Mercury

HI Haze Index

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IRON Incremental Reactions for Organics and Nitrogen Oxides

km Kilometers

MEVE Mesa Verde

MING Mingo

Mm -1 

### Inverse Megameters

MRPO Midwest Regional Planning Organization

MW Megawatt

NH 4 

### Ammonium

NO 3 

### Particulate Nitrate

non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit

### Page iii

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

NO

x 

### Nitrogen Oxides

NSR New Source Review

OC Organic Carbon

OMC Organic Matter Carbon

OSAT Ozone Source Apportionment Technology

PGM Photochemical Grid Model

PiG Plume-in-Grid

PLUVUE Plume Visibility Model

PM Particulate Matter

PM 10 

### Particulate Matter with aerodynami c diameters less than 10 microns

PM 2.5 

### Particulate Matter with aerodynami c diameters less than 2.5 microns

PNO3 Particulate Nitrate

POA Primary Organic Aerosol

PSAT Particulate Matter S ource Apportionment Technology

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSO4 Particulate Sulfate

QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan

Q/D Emissions of source / dist ance to nearest Class 1 area

RH Relative Humidity

RHR Regional Haze Rule

RPO Regional Planning Organization

SACR Salt Creek

SAPE San Pedro Parks

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Oper ator Kernel Emissions

SO 2 

### Sulfur Dioxide

SO 4 

### Sulfate

SOA Secondary Organic Aerosol

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TIP Tribal Implementation Plan

tpy tons per year

UARG Utility Air Regulatory Group

UPBU Upper Buffalo

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State a nd Tribal Association of the Southeast

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WEMI Weminuche

WHIT White Mountain

WHPE Wheeler Peak

WHRI White River monitor considered a surrogate for Flat Tops, Maroon

Bells-Snowmass, West Elk, and Eagles Nest

WIMO Wichita Mountains

WRAP Western Regiona l Air Partnership

### Page iv

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

### Page 1

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

# A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements:

40 CFR 51.308(e)

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement s for regional haze visibility impairment. Texas

must submit a SIP containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with

BART for each BART eligible source that may reasona bly be anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Fe deral area, unless it demonstrates that an emissions

trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasona ble progress toward natural visibility

conditions.

Notes: The evaluation of whether the RH SIP contai ns “adequate emission limitations representing BART

and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairme nt of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal

area” is conducted within differe nt modeling approaches to screen groups or individual sources as

further discussed below for each BART elig ible source based on visibility impacts.

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) – (3) concerning the use of a trading program or other alternative to BART are

not applicable to this SIP.

### Page 2

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

# B. BART Eligible Source Identification: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i)

Texas must submit a SIP containing a list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.

Note: This section is intended to cover the general question of whet her the state identified which sources

were subject to BART. Subsequent sections treat this determination in more detail.

State Submittal

TCEQ’s BART rule adopted on January 10, 2007 (TCEQ RH Appendix 9-2: Texas BART Rule – TAC

Title 30 Part 1 Chapter 116 Subchapter M ), identifies potentially affected sources as those:

• belonging to one of 26 industry source categories;

• having the potential to emit (PTE) 250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any visibilityimpairing pollutant; and

• not operating prior to August 7, 1962, and in existence on August 7, 1977

TCEQ followed EPA’s BART Guidelines that the state was not required to make a determination of BART

for SO 2 

### or NO X 

### if a BART-eligible source has the PTE less than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s) or less

than 15 tons per year for PM 10 

### . We have listed the 26 BART categories for reference :

1. Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of mo re than 250 million British thermal units (BTU)

per hour heat input,

2. Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers),

3. Kraft pulp mills,

4. Portland cement plants,

5. Primary zinc smelters,

6. Iron and steel mill plants,

7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants,

8. Primary copper smelters,

9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day,

10. Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants,

11. Petroleum refineries,

12. Lime plants,

13. Phosphate rock processing plants,

14. Coke oven batteries,

15. Sulfur recovery plants,

16. Carbon black plants (furnace process),

17. Primary lead smelters,

18. Fuel conversion plants,

19. Sintering plants,

20. Secondary metal production facilities,

21. Chemical process plants,

22. Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTUs per hour heat input,

23. Petroleum storage and transfer facilities w ith a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels,

24. Taconite ore processing facilities,

25. Glass fiber processing plants, and

26. Charcoal production facilities.

### Page 3

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD In their submittal Texas has made the determination th at participation in CAIR is equivalent to BART.

This exempted EGUs subject to CAIR requirements from a BART analysis for SO 2 

### and NO

x 

### . As of the

date of this SIP revision by TCEQ in 2009, CAIR remained in effect until replaced by an EPA rule

consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court of App eals’ remand of CAIR back to EPA. Based on this

premise TCEQ developed their SIP and submitted it based on EPA’s prior determination that EGUs

subject to the cap and trade system established by CAIR did not have to be evaluated for BART for SO 2



### and NO

x 

### . On June 7, 2012, EPA issued a limited disa pproval of the Texas regional haze SIP based on

deficiencies arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. In

the same rulemaking, EPA found that CSAPR, like CAIR, provides for greater reasonable progress

towards the national goal than would BART (77 FR 33641). The docket for this earlier EPA limited

disapproval of Texas’s regional haze SIP may be found at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.

In our Federal Register Notice for this proposed rulemaking, we explain that at this time we are

proposing a FIP to replace Texas’s reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR

as an alternative to BART for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions from EGUs in the regional haze plan for Texas.

If EPA’s proposed FIP concerning CSAPR for BART is finalized, EGUs in Texas subject to CSAPR

requirements will continue to be exempt from a BART analysis for SO 2 

### and NO

x



### The TCEQ has also adopted the model plants approach, or option 2, developed by the EPA

(500tpy/50 km and 1000 tpy/100 km); this is an approach for using model plants to exempt

individual sources with common characteristics (70 FR 39162-3). TCEQ modified the EPA

approach to use reported actuals. Sources which meet this model plant exemption are considered

not to be negatively impacting visibility at Class I areas and are therefore not required to

complete a BART analysis.

The TCEQ manages the emissions and emissions-related da ta that is reported annually by sources in the

State of Texas Air Reporting System (STARS). TCEQ used the STARS data to determine which

sources were potentially BART- eligible. This databa se does not store any permit related information

such as build dates or permitted allowable emission le vels. As a result of these database limitations the

TCEQ surveyed companies regarding their potential to emit and construction dates in order to complete

the initial BART determination (TCEQ RH Appendix 9-3: A Sample Survey ).

### Page 4

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

## Texas Source Survey

Each of the 26 BART source categories were addr essed for Texas. The Standard Industrial Codes

(SIC) as well as the applicable Source Classifications Codes (SCC) were identified by TCEQ staff

using the 26 applicable source categories listed in S ection III (H) of the 40CFR Part 51, Regional Haze

Regulations. The initial survey population was based on this SIC/SCC list only.

As provided for in the EPA guidance document for BART, the TCEQ chose to adopt a model plant

analysis to reasonably eliminate smaller sources of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions which were distant from a

Class I area. The EPA guidance provides exemption of sources from consideration: if their actual

emission of NO X 

### or SO 2 

### (or combination of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### ) were less than 500 tpy, as long as they were

located more than 50 kilometers (km) from any Class I area; sources were also exempted if their 2002

emissions of NO X 

### or SO 2 

### (or combination of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### ) were less than 1,000 tpy as long as they

were located more than 100 km from any Class I ar ea. The TCEQ reduced the emission threshold to

750 tpy for sources greater than 100 km and 375 tpy for sources greater than 50 km to capture sources

that might not have met EPA’s threshold based only on their 2002 actual emissions levels. TCEQ used

75% of EPA’s model plant tpy emissions because they did not have a good database of potential

emissions and only used one year of actual emissions. Given their distance from Class I areas, the

relatively low emissions from the screened out sources are unlikely to significantly impact visibility at

those areas.

TCEQ supported the 75% factor based on an estimat e by TCEQ staff that the actual emissions are

typically 80 percent of the permitted amount. Using this estimate, TCEQ also assumed that companies

with actual volatile organic compounds (VOC) em issions of 200 tpy would reasonably have a

permitted potential to emit of 250 tpy. Companies wi th the applicable source categories and actual

emissions at their sites of 200 tpy or more of VOC or PM 10 

### were also asked to complete TCEQ’s

initial BART survey. TCEQ noted that in 2002, PM 2.5 

### data were collected but a review of the STARS

database indicated that some companies did not fully report fine particulate matter until later

inventories. As allowed by the BART guidelines, TCEQ chose to use PM 10 

### as a surrogate in order to

fully capture sources of particulate matter.

TCEQ used a county level distance screen to avoi d removing sources that barely exceeded distance

calculations. If any portion of the county was within the applicable distance to the nearest Class I

area, then all the sites within th at county were considered within the applicable distance. TCEQ

also surveyed all BART category sites within coun ties that were within 50 km of a Class I area. The

Class I areas considered for the Texas screening included the Guadalupe Mountains, Big Bend,

Carlsbad Caverns, Wichita Mountains, Ca ney Creek, Breton Island, and Salt Creek.

Using the different approaches to screening the STA RS database, TCEQ identified 254 sites/facilities

(approximately 12 percent of the 2,165 sources in the 2002 STARS emissions inventory) as potentially

BART-eligible based on distance and actual emissions. This list of 254 sources did not include any screening

for year of construction (initial opera tion) or reconstruction dates. The su rvey was sent to these 254 sites to

ask for site representatives to help in identifying construction or reconstruction dates and whether the PTE of

the BART-eligible equipment exceeded 250 tpy.

TCEQ provided an emission summary that contr asted the total 2002 actual emissions from the 254

sources with the state total emissions from facilitie s in the STARS database. We have included the

table as Table B-1: Emissions from Companies Surveyed as a Percentage of State Total Point Source

Emissions . Sources emitting a large percentage of the actual emissions in the state were in the survey

### Page 5

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD population. Emissions covered in the survey ranged from 61.7 percent of the 2002 VOC inventory to

97.7 percent of the SO 2 

### inventory. This analysis supports that they surveyed a very large share of the

facilities in Texas

Table B-1: Emissions from Companies Surveyed as a Percentage of State Total Point

Source Emissions

Source Emissions (tpy)

PM 10 

### SO 2 

### NO X 

### VOC

BART Survey 49,638 786,274 467,534 95,442

2002 State Total 66,064 805,133 601,447 154,665

TCEQ sent the surveys to 254 companies. TC EQ used a two-step process in the survey.

Companies were first asked to identify if th ey have any equipment built or reconstructed

during the applicable time period or if the PTE of their site were less than 250 tpy. TCEQ

concluded that companies that did not have BART applicable equipment based on low

emissions or construction dates were not asked to supply any further information and were

considered not BART-eligible.

If the site did possibly have BART applicable equipment, the survey asked them to complete a

detailed survey of all operating and idle equipment at each site. The detailed survey asked

whether each piece of equipment at the site was built or reconstructed between the applicable

dates. The companies were asked if the PTE of their BART-eligible equipment exceeded the

250 tpy threshold for the applicable emissions. Any source with a PTE from equipment built

during the applicable period w as considered BART-eligible.

Based on results from the surveys completed by potentially BART-eligible sources and

submitted to the TCEQ in 2005, 120 sources were initially identified as BART-eligible. Table

B-2: BART- Eligible Sources Based on Results of TCEQ Survey (TX RH Table 9-2) includes the

sources that TCEQ determined to be BART-eligible. Table B-2 also includes six additional

sources identified by TCEQ as BART eligible dur ing the development of their SIP (Numbers

121-126)

TCEQ also compiled a Table with the distances to different Class I areas within Texas and in

areas surrounding Texas that is being included as Table B-3 below.



### EPA Findings

We find that TCEQ has adequately identified all sources subject to BART within the

State.

### Page 6

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Table B-2 : BART- Eligible Sources Based on Results of TCEQ Survey (TX RH Table 9-2)



### No. Account Source Regulated Entity SIC

1 AC0017B Abitibi Consolidated Corp RN100220110 2621

2 TG0044C AEP Texas RN101531226 4911

3 CD0013K AEP Texas Central Company RN102560687 4911

4 NE0024E AEP Texas Central Company RN100642040 4911

5 NE0026A AEP Texas Central Company RN100552181 4911

6 JI0030K AEP Texas North Company RN100215557 4911

7 CB0003M Alcoa Alumina & Chemicals RN100242577 2819

8 MM0001T Alcoa Inc RN100221472 3334

9 HT0011Q Alon USA Lp RN100250869 2911

10 ED0034O Ash Grove

(Formerly North Texas Cement) RN100225978 3241

11 HG0558G Atofina Chemicals Inc RN100209444 2869

12 BL0021O BASF Corporation RN100218049 2869

13 GB0001R BP Amoco Chem ical Company RN102536307 2869

14 GB0004L BP Products North America In Texas RN102535077 2911

15 GH0003Q Cabot Corporation RN100221761 2895

16 BG0045E Capitol Cement Div Capitol RN100211507 3241

17 GH0004O Celanese Chemical RN101996395 2869

18 MH0009H Celanese Limited RN100258060 2869

19 ED0011D Chaparral Steel Midlothian RN100216472 3312

20 BJ0001T Chemical Lime Ltd RN100219856 3274

21 HG0310V Chevron Phillips Chemical RN103919817 2869

22 BL0758C Chevron Phillips Chemical RN100825249 2869

23 HW0013C Chevron Phillips Chemical Co RN102320850 2869

24 NE0027V Citgo Refining & Chemicals RN102555166 2911

25 BG0057U City Public Service RN100217975 4911

26 BG0186I City Public Service RN100217835 4911

### Page 7

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 27 HW0018P Conoco Phillips (Formerly Phillips 66) RN102495884 2911

28 CR0020C Copano Processing LP RN101271419 1321

29 AB0012W DCP

(Formerly Duke Ener gy Field Services) RN100218684 1321

30 HW0008S Degussa Engineered Carbons RN100209659 2895

31 HGA005E DOW RN104150123 2869

32 HG0126Q DOW RN100227016 2869

33 CI0022A Dynegy Midstream Services RN100222900 1321

34 HH0042M Eastman Chemi cal Company RN100219815 2869

35 HG0218K E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co RN100225085 2869

36 OC0007J E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co RN100542711 2869

37 EE0029T El Paso Electric Co RN100211309 4911

38 TH0004D Electric Util ity Dept RN100219872 4911

39 CG0012C Enbridge Pipelines RN102166964 1321

40 MQ0009F Entergy Gulf States Inc RN100226877 4911

41 OC0013O Entergy Gulf States Inc RN102513041 4911

42 BL0113I Equistar RN100218601 2869

43 BL0268B Equistar Chemicals LP RN100237668 2821

44 HG0033B Equistar Chemicals LP RN100542281 2869

45 HG0228H Exxon Chemical Co RN102212925 2869

46 JE0065M Exxon Mobil Chemical Co RN100211903 2821

47 HG0229F ExxonMobil Chemical Co RN102574803 2869

48 HG0232Q ExxonMobil Corp RN102579307 2911

49 JE0067I ExxonMobil Oil Corp RN102450756 2911

50 NE0120H Flint Hills Resources RN102534138 2911

51 NE0122D Flint Hills Resources LP RN100235266 2911

52 JE0052V Huntsman Corporation RN100219252 2869

53 JE0135Q Huntsman Petrochemical Corp RN100217389 2869

54 EB0057B Huntsman Polymers RN101867554 2869

55 BL0002S INEOS Olefins & Polymers RN100238708 2869

### Page 8

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 56 CG0010G International Paper Co RN100543115 2621

57 OCA002B Invista RN104392626 2869

58 VC0008Q Invista

(Formerly Du Pont De Nemours) RN102663671 2869

59 WE0005G Laredo Power RN100213909 4911

60 MB0123F Lehigh Cement Company RN100218254 3241

61 NE0025C Lon C Hill Power RN100215979 4911

62 BC0015L Lower Colorado Ri ver Authority RN102038486 4911

63 FC0018G Lower Colorado Ri ver Authority RN100226844 4911

64 HG1575W Lyondell Chemical RN100633650 2869

65 HG0048L Lyondell Citgo Refining RN100218130 2911

66 GB0055R Marathon Ashla nd Petroleum RN100210608 2911

67 HH0019H NORIT Americas Inc RN102609724 2819

68 GB0037T NRG Texas (Formerl y Texas Genco LP) RN101062826 4911

69 ED0051O Owens Corning RN100223585 3296

70 HG1451S Oxyvinyls LP RN102518065 2821

71 HG0175D Pasadena Refining RN100716661 2911

72 JE0042B Premcor Refining Group RN102584026 2911

73 MC0002H Regency Tilden Gas

(Formerly Enbridge) RN100216621 2819

74 HG0697O Rhodia Inc RN100220581 2819

75 HG0632T Rohm & Haas Texas RN100223205 2869

76 HG0659W Shell Oil Co RN100211879 2911

77 HW0017R Sid Richardson Carbon RN100222413 2895

78 HT0027B Sid Richardson Carbon Co RN100226026 2895

79 BL0038U Solutia Inc RN100238682 2869

80 TF0012D Southwestern Electric Power RN100213370 4911

81 GJ0043K Southwestern Electric Power RN102156916 4911

82 ME0006A Southwestern Electric Power RN100542596 4911

83 PG0040T Southwestern Public Service RN100224641 4911

84 PG0041R Southwestern Public Service RN100224849 4911

### Page 9

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 85 LN0081B Southwestern Public Service RN100224765 4911

86 JE0091L Sun Marine Terminal RN100214626 4226

87 WN0042V Targa RN102552387 1311

88 CY0019H Targa (Formerly D ynegy Midstream) RN102551785 1311

89 OC0019C Temple-Inland RN100214428 2621

90 CI0012D Texas Genco LP RN100825371 4911

91 FG0020V Texas Genco LP RN100888312 4911

92 HK0014M Texas Lehigh Cement Co RN102597846 3241

93 HG0562P Texas Petrochemicals LP RN100219526 2869

94 BL0082R The Dow Chemical Co RN100225945 2869

95 JE0039N The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Co RN102561925 2822

96 NE0022I Ticona Polymers Inc RN101625721 2869

97 JE0005H Total Petrochemicals RN102457520 2911

98 ED0066B TXI Operations LP RN100217199 3241

99 FI0020W TXU Big Brown Company LP RN101198059 4911

100 DB0251U TXU Electric Company RN101559854 4911

101 FB0025U TXU Generation Company LP RN102285855 4911

102 HQ0012T TXU Generation Company LP RN100664812 4911

103 MB0116C TXU Generation Company LP RN102566494 4911

104 MM0023J TXU Generation Company LP RN102147881 4911

105 MO0014L TXU Generation Company LP RN102285848 4911

106 RL0020K TXU Generation Company LP RN102583093 4911

107 TA0352I TXU Generation Company LP RN100693308 4911

108 WC0028Q TXU Generation Company LP RN102183969 4911

109 YB0017V TXU Generation Company LP RN102563426 4911

110 TF0013B TXU Generation Company LP RN102285921 4911

111 GB0076J Union Carbide Corp RN100219351 2869

112 CB0028T Union Carbide Corporation RN102181526 2869

113 HR0018T Valence Midstream Ltd RN100213685 1321

114 GB0073P Valero Refining Co Texas RN100238385 2911

### Page 10

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 115 NE0043A Valero Refi ning Company RN100211663 2911

116 MR0008T Valero McKee RN100210517 2911

117 WH0014S Vetrotex Wichita Falls Plant RN100218601 3229

118 VC0003D Victoria Power RN100214980 4911

119 JB0016M Vintage Petroleum Inc RN100214592 1311

120 JC0003K Westvaco RN102157609 2631

121 1 

### JE0343H BMC Holdings Inc

122 AG0024G Pueblo Midstream Gas Corp

123 GBA007G INEOS

124 HG0130C Valero Refining Texas LP

125 JH0025O Johns Manville International

126 PE0024Q Regency Gas Services

1 Numbers 121-130 were not included in TCEQ’s initial list of 120 sources potentially subject to BART but were added

during their review and development of the SIP.Page 11EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDTable B-3 (From TCEQ SIP Table 9-4) BART- Eligible Sources’ Distance to Class I Areas In Texas and Near Texas.RegulatedEntityCompanyDistance to Class I Area(km)BigBendBretonIsleCaneyCreekCarlsbadCavernsGuada-lupeMtnsSaltCreekUpperBuffaloWheelerPeakWhiteMtnWichitaMtnsRN100220110 ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP 851 580 343 937 968 946 514 1148 1070 533RN102560687 AEP TEXAS CENTRAL CO 652 957 979 945 953 1054 1152 1374 1132 962RN100642040 AEP TEXAS CENTRAL CO 608862 815 860 874 951 988 1255 1041 805RN100552181 AEP TEXAS CENTRAL CO 590 865 797 838 852 926 970 1229 1018 780RN100215557 AEP TEXAS NORTH CO 497 1071 556 460 495 455 681 688 579 257RN101531226 AEP TEXAS NORTH CO 351 1125 684 393 420 442 821 733 549 408RN100221472 ALCOA INC 609 792 510 731 758 769 679 1022 884 490RN100242577 ALCOA WORLD ALUMINA LLC 652 759 680 859 878 927 854 1209 1030 708RN100250869 ALON USA LP 373 1223 720 295 329 316 837 604 431 372RN100225978 ASH GROVE TEXASLP 693 827 342 710 744 700 496 893 827 294RN100209444 ATTOFINA CHEMICALS INC 780 609 526 932 957 972 698 1217 1086 647RN100219872 AUSTIN ENERGY 553 843 563 690 715 738 731 1005 849 505RN100218049 BASF CORPORATION 760 641 613 942 965 996 785 1258 1105 711RN102536307 BP AMOCO CHEMICAL CO 804 590 566 969 993 1014 736 1264 1127 697RN102535077 BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA 805 562 564 970 994 1014 735 1264 1127 696RN100221761 CABOT CORPORATION 721 1296 642 497 535 377 686 414 494 225RN100211507 CAPITOL CEMENT DIV 466 924 677 652 672 724 843 1017 824 579RN101996395 CELANESE CHEMICAL 717 1297 645 492 531 373 689 413 489 226RN100258060 CELANESE LTD 702 703 642 894 915 955 816 1227 1061 703RN100216472 CHAPARRAL STEEL687 828 348707 741 699 503 894 825 299RN100219856 CHEMICAL LIME LTD 603 858 443 658 689 672 601 901 793 354RN103919817 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL 805 584 515 953 979 990 686 1231 1106 654RN102320850 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL 733 1332 676 494 531 365 715 379 477 261RN100825249 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL 726 673 612 908 930 964 785 1229 1072 690RN102555166 CITGO REFINING & CHEMICALS 557 866 798 837 852 926 971 1229 1018 781RN100217975 CITY PUBLIC SERVICE 475 917 693 673 692 748 861 1044 847 606RN100217835 CITY PUBLIC SERVICE 470 923 701 671 689 748 868 1045 845 611RN102495884 CONOCO PHILLIPS 732 1333 677 492 530 363 716 378 475 262RN101271419 COPANO PROCESSING LP 640 751 598 813 835 868 771 1138 977 619RN100218684 DCP MIDSTREAM LP 350 1355 837 167 204 198 943 519 303 457Page 12EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDRegulatedEntityCompanyDistance to Class I Area(km)BigBendBretonIsleCaneyCreekCarlsbadCavernsGuada-lupeMtnsSaltCreekUpperBuffaloWheelerPeakWhiteMtnWichitaMtnsRN100209659 DEGUSSA ENG CARBONS 728 1337 683 486 524 357 722 373 469 266RN100227016 DOW CHEMICAL CO 791 600 539 947 972 988 710 1235 1102 665RN104150123 DOW CHEMICAL CO 796 598 536 951 975 987 717 1238 1113 668RN100222900 DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES 807 583 513 954 980 991 684 1231 1107 653RN100219815 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 886 623 224 927 960 915 397 1084 1042 452RN100225085 EI DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO 794 596 530 947 972 987 701 1232 1102 660RN100542711 EI DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO 918 472 484 1053 1080 1080 646 1303 1199 699RN100211309 EL PASO ELECTRIC CO 428 1689 1178 178 146 260 1273 518 175 778RN102166964 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES LP 940 647 135 952 987 924 308 1067 1053 428RN100226877 ENTERGY GULF STATES INC 753 643 461 878 906 908 634 1143 1026 565RN102513041 ENTERGY GULF STATES INC 907 484 487 1043 1070 1071 650 1295 1190 695RN100210574 EQUISTAR 777 619 582 948 971 996 753 1252 1108 694RN100237668 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP 777 618 582 948 972 997 754 1252 1108 695RN100542281 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP 787 603 517 935 961 973 688 1216 1088 643RN100211903 EXXON MOBIL CHEMICALS 889 501 482 1024 1051 1053 647 1279 1171 680RN102212925 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO 796 594 524 947 972 986 695 1229 1101 655RN102574803 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO 795 594 525 947 972 986 696 1229 1101 656RN102579307 EXXONMOBIL CORP 796 598 526 944 970 982 697 1236 1112 658RN102450756 EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP 888 502 482 1023 1050 1052 647 1278 1170 679RN102534138 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP 590 865 798 838 852 927 971 1230 1018 781RN100235266 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP 580 874 800 829 843 918 972 1222 1009 777RN100219252 HUNTSMAN CORP 899 491 492 1037 1064 1067 656 1293 1185 694RN100217389 HUNTSMAN CORP 897 493 501 1038 1065 1069 666 1297 1187 700RN101867554 HUNTSMAN POLYMERS CORP 293 1303 819 212 241 277 936 600 373 467RN100238708 INEOS USA LLC 779 617 584 951 974 1000 756 1255 1111 698RN100543115 INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO 974 619 128 988 1023 960 296 1099 1089 460RN104392626 INVISTA 918 472 484 1053 1080 1080 646 1303 1199 700RN102663671 INVISTA S.A.R.L. 614 797 693 824 842 896 866 1182 996 696RN100213909 LAREDO WLE LP 411 1069 918 703 710 818 1086 1145 890 802RN100218254 LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY 623 820 438 694 725 712 601 942 832 388RN100215979 LON C HILL LP 571 882 802 820 834 911 974 1216 1001 774Page 13EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDRegulatedEntityCompanyDistance to Class I Area(km)BigBendBretonIsleCaneyCreekCarlsbadCavernsGuada-lupeMtnsSaltCreekUpperBuffaloWheelerPeakWhiteMtnWichitaMtnsRN102038486 LCRA 583 810 559 727 752 775 729 1040 886 529RN100226844 LCRA 630 760 558 783 807 831 730 1094 942 568RN100633650 LYONDELL CHEMICAL CO 787 603 518 936 962 975 690 1218 1090 645RN100218130 LYONDELL CITGO REFINING 775 615 529 928 953 969 703 1216 1083 648RN100210608 MARATHON PETROLEUM 806 587 564 971 995 1015 734 1265 1128 697RN102609724 NORIT AMERICAS INC 915 603 209 954 988 940 381 1104 1067 470RN101062826 NRG TEXAS LP 799 593 552 960 984 1003 723 1251 1117 682RN100223585 OWENS-CORNING 701 811 336 724 758 717 494 910 843 310RN102518065 OXY VINYLS LP 789 601 528 941 966 981 699 1226 1096 654RN100716661 PASADENA REFINING SYSTEM 777 613 528 930 955 971 703 1217 1085 649RN102584026 PREMCOR REFINING GROUP 897 493 505 1039 1066 1070 669 1299 1188 703RN100216621 REGENCY FS (FIELD SERVICES) 468 953 788 711 725 804 957 1113 892 705RN100223205 RHODIA, INC. 797 593 524 948 973 987 695 1230 1102 657RN100223205 ROHM & HAAS TEXAS 788 602 528 940 965 980 699 1225 1095 654RN100211879 SHELL OIL CO 785 604 530 938 964 979 701 1224 1093 654RN100222413 SID RICHARDSON CARBON 727 1337 683 486 524 357 722 373 468 266RN100226026 SID RICHARDSON CARBON 218 1407 945 142 153 275 1063 618 329 590RN100238682 SOLUTIA INC 777 618 582 948 972 997 754 1252 1108 695RN102156916 SOUTHWESTERN ELEC POWER 888 616 231 932 965 921 403 1092 1048 461RN100542596 SOUTHWESTERN ELEC POWER 915 632 178 941 975 921 351 1077 1049 440RN100213370 SOUTHWESTERN ELEC POWER 900 668 165 914 949 890 338 1041 1019 404RN100224641 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERV 679 1346 705 435 473 308 754 362 423 281RN100224849 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERV 681 1347 705 436 474 309 754 361 424 282RN100224765 SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERV 490 1282 712 304 344 248 803 477 377 309RN100214626 SUN MARINE TERMINAL 896 494 505 1038 1065 1070 670 1299 1188 703RN102551785 TARGA MIDSTREAM SERVICES 251 1327 859 196 219 288 979 621 370 513RN102552387 TARGA MIDSTREAM SERVICES 684 925 361 647 684 617 488 786 745 182RN100214428 TEMPLE-INLAND 921 471 466 1050 1077 1074 628 1293 1194 687RN100888312 TEXAS GENCO 736 656 565 901 925 949 738 1205 1060 653RN100825371 TEXAS GENCO 804 585 523 955 980 993 694 1236 1109 660RN102597846 TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO 525 867 599 678 701 734 767 1009 841 528Page 14EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDRegulatedEntityCompanyDistance to Class I Area(km)BigBendBretonIsleCaneyCreekCarlsbadCavernsGuada-lupeMtnsSaltCreekUpperBuffaloWheelerPeakWhiteMtnWichitaMtnsRN100219526 TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LP 772 617 534 927 952 968 706 1216 1083 649RN102561925 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER 874 516 492 1013 1040 1044 659 1273 1161 679RN101625721 TICONA POLYMERS INC 562 911 839 824 836 920 1011 1230 1006 803RN102457520 TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS USA 904 485 493 1043 1070 1072 657 1298 1190 698RN100217199 TXI OPERATIONS LP 688 827 347 708 742 700 503 895 826 299RN101198059 TXU BIG BROWN CO LP 741 719 340 802 833 806 511 1010 930 409RN101559854 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 720 841 312 716 751 695 459 871 823 257RN102285855 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 809 822 227 781 818 745 366 887 874 250RN100664812 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 630 886 402 645 678 640 550 846 765 277RN102566494 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 651 797 413 719 750 733 578 957 854 389RN102147881 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 610 791 509 732 758 770 679 1022 884 490RN102285848 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 403 1178 674 343 376 355 793 627 473 336RN102583093 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 889 604 242 939 972 930 414 1104 1057 474RN100693308 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 680 865 352 680 715 665 498 852 792 256RN102285921 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 885 685 170 897 932 872 342 1024 1001 387RN102183969 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 255 1360 884 162 186 261 1001 599 339 528RN102563426 TXU GENERATION COMPANY 612 991 441 567 603 541 563 730 669 180RN102181526 UNION CARBIDE CORP 634 783 702 848 867 921 876 1208 1021 718RN100219351 UNION CARBIDE CORP 802 591 565 967 991 1012 735 1262 1125 695RN100213685 VALENCE MIDSTREAM 842 717 204 853 888 831 372 990 959 356RN100210517 VALERO MCKEE 751 1387 728 490 527 350 760 326 453 316RN100238385 VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS 806 588 565 971 995 1015 735 1265 1128 697RN100211663 VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS 559 867 798 836 851 925 971 1229 1017 780RN100218601 VETROTEX AMERICA 671 1019 419 587 625 539 521 690 668 99RN100214980 VICTORIA WLE LP 607 799 682 813 832 883 855 1169 985 682RN100214592 VINTAGE PETROLEUM LLC 646 761 669 847 867 914 842 1195 1017 693RN102157609 WESTVACO 891 503 451 1016 1044 1040 617 1260 1160 656

### Page 15

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

# C. Determination of Sources Subject to BART

Under the EPA’s BART guidelines, the state h as two options regarding its BART-eligible

sources:

• make BART determinations for all sources; or

• consider exempting some sources from BART because they do not cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area.

The TCEQ chose the second option that considers exempting some sources.

When exempting sources from BART because they do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment

in a Class I area, the guidelines suggest three sub-opt ions for determining that certain sources are not

subject to BART:

• the use of model plants to exempt sources with common characteristics

(70 FR 39162-3);

• a cumulative modeling analysis to show that groups of sources are not subject to BART;

• and finally; an individual source attribution approach.

The TCEQ exercised all three sub-options above to determine which sources were subject to

BART. These options are explained further belo w, in the order in which the TCEQ and the

sources performed the analyses.

Section C-1 describes the cumulative modeli ng analyses that the TCEQ performed for the sources

identified as BART-eligible. Because there was such a large number of BART-eligible sources in

Texas, the TCEQ performed cumulative modeling analyses using CAMx PSAT technology. Once the

TCEQ had completed the CAMx modeling analysis, several BART- eligible sources were determined

to be insignificant (screened out) and several remain ed potentially BART-eligible (did not screen out).

Screening out is a process that further examines a nd evaluates sources for inclusion or exclusion in the

BART program. Sources that did not screen out through the cumulative modeling analysis were

required to perform source-specific screening mode ling analyses using either the CALPUFF or the

CAMx model setup developed by the TCEQ. TCEQ th en evaluated some of the sources using sources

that had been in groups that screened out in CA Mx in Section C-2. Section D-1 discusses the sources

that decided to conduct refined CAMx analysis fo r potential screening. D-2 discusses the sources that

either did CALPUFF modeling based on the CENRAP BART MODELING GUIDELINES (Appendix

A) or did refined CALPUFF modeling. BART- eligible sources that did not screen out in any of the

modeling analyses had the option of reducing the emissions from their BART-eligible units using an

enforceable mechanism, such as a permit, or perfo rming an engineering analysis. The BART-eligible

sources that chose to reduce potential emissions are discussed in Section E. There were also some

sources that provided additional information to TC EQ that allowed the sources to be dropped from

BART eligible consideration.



## C-1 Cumulative Screening Modeling Using CAMx PSAT and Source

Grouping

Because of the large number of sources that needed to be further evaluated, EPA Region 6 and TCEQ

discussed potential options of using the CENRAP 2002 modeling to conduct some visibility impact

analysis. TCEQ wanted to investigate if there were some groups of VOC and/or PM emissions from

potential BART-eligible sources in Texas that could be shown to contribute insignificantly to visibility

impairment at Class I areas. TCEQ also inquired ab out using the same modeling platform to assess if

VOC and/or PM emissions from potential BART-e ligible sources in Texas could be shown to

### Page 16

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD contribute insignificantly to visibility impairment at Class I areas. These tests were implemented to try

to screen out as many sources as possible from any further BART analysis before having to conduct

more refined modeling of a source specific na ture or conducting a full BART evaluation.

TCEQ documented how they conducted screening modeling analyses as in the CAMx modeling

protocol, Screening Analysis of Potentially BART-Eligible Sources in Texas, and the final CAMx

modeling report, Final Report, Screening Analysis of Pote ntial BART-Eligible Sources in Texas,

presented in Appendixes B and C (TX RH SIP Appendix 9-3 and 9-4) respectively. We will provide a

very brief overview of the modeling and refer the reader to the Appendices for more details.

Prior to performing the Texas BART screening analysis with CAMx, a modeling protocol was

prepared that provided details on the modeling a pproach to be used for the Texas group BART

screening analysis (ENVIRON, 2005b). The modeling protocol was reviewed by TCEQ, EPA and

FLM representatives specialized in air quality anal yses and BART prior to performing the analysis.

The Texas BART screening analysis modeling protocol contained a summary of the BART

requirements taken from EPA’s BART guidelines.

To evaluate the visibility impacts of a poten tial BART-eligible source at Class I areas beyond 50

kilometers (km) from the source, EPA modeling guidance (EPA, 2003c) recommends the use of the

California Puff Model (CALPUFF) model. For modeling the impact of sources closer than

50 km to a Class I area, EPA’s BART guidance recommends that expert modeling judgment be used

“giving consideration to both CALPUFF and othe r methods.” The Plume Visibility Model- II

(PLUVUE) model is mentioned as a possible model to consider in addition to CALPUFF within 50 km

of a source. The EPA guidance notes that regional scale photochemical grid models may have merit,

but such models are resource intensive relative to CALPUFF. Photochemical grid models are clearly

more appropriate for cumulative modeling options such as in the determination of the aggregate

contribution of all BART-eligible sources to visi bility impairment, but such use should involve

consultation with the appropr iate EPA Regional Office.

EPA’s 2005 BART Guidelines indicated that CALPUFF is recommended for ascertaining whether a

potential BART-eligible source may need to perform further BART analysis for distances greater than

50 km. The Guidelines continue that if a source is determined to be subject to BART, CALPUFF or

another appropriate model should be used to evaluate the improvement in visibility resulting from the

application of BART controls. Emissions reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction are

not to be considered in determining the appropria te emission rates. EPA recommends that states use

the highest 24-hour average actual emission rate for the most recent five-year period (excluding

periods with start-up, shutdown, and malfunctions ). Visibility improvements may be evaluated on a

pollutant-specific basis.

EPA’s BART Guidelines also allows states to “subm it to EPA a demonstration, based on an analysis

of overall visibility impacts, that emissions from BART-eligible sources in your state, considered

together, are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I

area, and thus no source should be subject to BART ” (EPA, 2005). This approach was pursued in the

Texas BART screening analysis with CAMx. EPA guidance notes that “you may also use a

photochemical grid model” and “if you wish to u se a grid model, you should consult with the

appropriate EPA Regional Office to develop an appropriate modeling protocol” (EPA, 2005). The

TCEQ entered into discussions with EPA Region 6 and FLM representatives and developed a group

screening modeling approach that was agreed to as acceptable.



## Modeling Approach

As mentioned above, Texas used CAMx for its BART screening analysis. Given the large number of

sources that can be evaluated in a single modeling run with CAMx, compared to over 100 model runs

### Page 17

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD with CALPUFF, the approach has some time saving benefits. Many of the BA RT-eligible sources in

Texas are very far away from a Class I area and CA Mx provides a scientifically defendable platform

for assessment of visibility impacts. CAMx is also more suited than some other modeling approaches

for evaluating the impacts of SO 2 

### , NO X 

### , VOC and PM emissions as it has a more robust chemistry

mechanism and assesses emissions in a cumulative manner. CAMx also provided the ability to more

easily evaluate if VOCs or PM from the sources could be determined insignificant.

The Texas BART screening analysis was built upon the regional photochemical modeling (Morris et

al., 2005d) being conducted by CENRAP. In par ticular, the CENRAP 2002 36 km modeling database

for the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with ex tensions (CAMx) (ENVIRON, 2005a) was enhanced

to include a 12 km grid over Texas and nearby Class I areas. CAMx zero-out VOC and PM emissions

from BART sources and inert primary PM BART sources emissions modeling was conducted to

determine whether potential BART-eligible sources’ VOC and PM emissions could be shown to

contribute insignificantly to visibility impairme nt at any Class I area. The CAMx PM Source

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling was al so conducted for groups of potential BARTeligible sources’ SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions. A potential BART-eligible source in a group that is shown

not to contribute significantly to visibility impair ment at any Class I area may be excluded from further

steps in the BART process. TCEQ and EPA agr eed to several refinements for a more accurate

assessment. These included using:



###  12 kmflexi-nest over TX and the surroundi ng Class I areas of more immediate

concern,

 Particulate Source Apportionment Tool (PSAT) that allows tracking of the impacts

of BART sources or groups of BART sources within a single run,

 Plume in Grid (PiG) provide more accurate treatment of the near-source transport,

plume dispersion,

 TCEQ funded ENVIRON to make the PSA T and Pig with full plume chemistry

work together for this evaluation of the BART sources and alle viated concerns of

artificially dispersing emissi ons over a 12km grid cell.

The most recent version of CAMx at the time, CAMx V4.4, was used in this wo rk and incorporated all

of these features.

The analyses consisted of two basic elements:

• VOC and PM Modeling Analyses: An analysis of the VOC and PM emissions from all

potential BART-eligible sources was performed. Fo llowed by analysis of VOC from all potential

BART-eligible sources. Finally, analyses of the PM emissions from the BART- eligible sources was

performed using grouped sources because the initial PM modeling was significant with all the sources.

• PSAT Modeling Analyses for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions: Screening analyses for groups of

potential BART-eligible non-EGU sources’ SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions were performed to determine

whether the group’s visibility impact s at Class I areas were insignificant.

Both elements of the BART screening analyses u sed the same 36/12 km 2002 annual database for

CAMx (ENVIRON, 2005a) based on the database deve loped by CENRAP (www.cenrap.org). The

VOC and PM emission screening analyses were perform ed using emissions zero-out modeling and, for

primary PM only, inert simulations. The group of sources’ SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions screening analyses

were performed using an update d version of the CAMx PSAT.

MODEL PLATFORM --2002 ANNUAL 36/12 KM MODELING DATABASE

The BART screening modeling was performed us ing the CAMx Version 4.4 model and the 2002

annual regional photochemical modeling database developed as part of the CENRAP (Morris,

### Page 18

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 2005d). CENRAP developed a 2002 annual mode ling database for CAMx on the 36 km unified

national Regional Planning Organization (RPO) grid th at covers the continental United States. This

database was developed following the procedures ou tlined in the CENRAP Modeling Protocol (Morris

et al., 2004c) and CENRAP modeling Quality A ssurance Program Plan (QAPP) (Morris and

Tonnesen, 2004b). The CENRAP preliminary base case model performance evaluation results for the

CAMx model on the national 36 km grid using the CE NRAP base A emissions is given in Morris et

al., (2005d). The CENRAP modeling protocol, QA PP, and preliminary base A evaluation reports

provide details on the development of the CENR AP 2002 36 km annual modeling database. Provided

below is a summary of the enhancements made to the CENRAP database for use in this BART

screening analysis. Additional details can be fo und in the modeling protocol (ENVIRON, 2005b).

Enhancements to the CENRAP 2002 Modeling Database

The CENRAP 2002 36 km annual CAMx evaluation using the base A emissions and CAMx Version

4.20 is reported in Morris and co-workers (2005d). CENRAP was updating the 2002 base case

emissions and updated CMAQ and CAMx simulations as the RH modeling work continued. For the

Texas BART screening modeling, the base B base case database was used (the most current available

at the time).

The CENRAP Base B 2002 36 km annual CAMx photo chemical modeling database was updated to

include a 12 km nested-grid that covers Tex as and Class I areas in and near Texas including:

• National Parks: Big Bend (BIBE), Guad alupe Mountains (GUMO), and Carlsbad

Caverns

• Wildlife Refuges: Salt Creek (SACR) and Wichita Mountains (WIMO)

• Wilderness Areas: White Mountain (WHIT), Caney Creek (CACR), Upper Buffalo

(UPBU), and Hercules-Glade (HEGL).

Figure C-1 displays the 36/12 km nested grid st ructure used for the CAMx BART screening modeling

analysis. The locations of the potential BART-e ligible sources and Interagency Monitoring of

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites that includes Class I areas within the 12 km

modeling domain are shown in Figure C-2. The CAMx flexi-nesting feature was used to specify a 12

km Texas fine grid within the CENRAP 36 km modeling domain. Full flexi-nesting was used in

CAMx which results in the model internally inte rpolating meteorological data, emissions and other

inputs from the 36 km grid to the 12 km grid.

### Page 19

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Figure C-1 from ENVIRON Figure 2-1. Texas BART modeling 36/12 km modeling domain and the

locations of the IMPROVE monitoring sites that incl ude Class I areas, indicated by circles. Note: the

one circle in North central LA and two circles in Northern Oklahoma are not Class I areas.

### Page 20

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Figure C-2 from ENVIRON Figure 2-2 Texas BA RT modeling 12 km modeling domain and the

locations of the IMPROVE monitoring sites (circl es) that include Class I areas and locations of

potential BART-eligible sources in Texas (triangles).

### Page 21

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD As briefly mentioned above, PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) was used to conduct the

SO 2 

### and NO X 

### potential BART-eligible screening analysis . In Version 4.4 of CAMx, the PSAT was

updated to be compatible with the CAMx full ch emistry Plume-in-Grid (PiG) module. The next

discussion briefly describes the PSAT technique and th e enhancements that were made to the CAMx

PiG and PSAT to make them compatible with each other. More details are provided in the modeling

protocol (Appendix B & C).

PSAT is designed to source apportion the following PM species modeled in CAMx:

• Sulfate (SO4)

• Particulate nitrate (NO3)

• Ammonium (NH4)

• Particulate mercury (Hg(p))

• Secondary organic aerosol (SOA)

• Six categories of primary particulate matter (PM)



###  Elemental carbon (EC)

 Primary organic aerosol (POA)

 Fine crustal PM (FCRS)

 Fine other primary PM (FPRM)

 Coarse crustal PM (CCRS)

 Coarse other primary PM (CPRM)

PSAT performs PM source apportionment for each user defined source group. A source group

consists of a combination of a geographic regions and emissions source categories. Examples of source

regions include: countries, states, nonattainment areas, or counties. Examples of source categories

include: area sources, mobile sources, biogenic sour ces, elevated point sources or individual point

sources. The user defines a map to specify the source regions. The user then defines each source

category. For example, separate gridded low-level emissions and/or elevated point source emissions.

The model then determines each source group by join ing the source categories with the source region

map.

The PSAT “reactive tracers” that are added for each source category/region combination (i). In

general, a single tracer can track primary PM sp ecies, whereas secondary PM species require several

tracers to track the relationship between gaseous prec ursors and the resulting PM. Particulate nitrate

and secondary organics are the most complex speci es to apportion because the emitted precursor gases

(NOx and VOCs) are several steps removed from th e resulting PM species (NO3 and SOA). There is

a PSAT convention that tracer names for par ticulate species begin with the letter “P.”

This PSAT included a total of 32 tracers for each sour ce group (i) if source apportionment is applied to

all types of PM. Because source apportionment may not always be needed for all species, the PSAT

implementation is flexible and allows source apportio nment for any or all of the chemical classes in

each CAMx simulation (i.e. the SO4, NO3, SOA, Hg and primary PM classes listed above). For

example, source apportionment for sulfate/nitrate/ammonium requires just nine tracers per source

group.

One fundamental assumption in PSAT is that PM is apportioned back to the primary precursor for each

type of PM. For example, SO4 is apportione d to SOx emissions, NO3 is apportioned to NOx

emissions, NH4 is apportioned to NH3 emissions, etc.

The CAMx PSAT and PiG algorithms were updated to treat the near-source dispersion and chemistry

of secondary PM formation in the PM source appor tionment calculations. A new full- chemistry PiG

module was developed that has been extended to PSAT and Ozone Source Apportionment Technology

(OSAT). The full-chemistry PiG treats the gas-ph ase and aqueous- phase reactions associated with

ozone, sulfate and nitrate formation.

### Page 22

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

## Procedures For VOC and PM Emissions BART Screening Analysis

Two types of screening analyses were performed to assess the visibility impacts of VOC and PM

emissions from potential BART-eligible sources:

(1) zero-out VOC and PM emissions modeling; and

(2) inert PM emissions modeling.

The first BART screening analysis evaluated the cu mulative visibility impacts at Class I areas of VOC

and PM emissions from all potential BART-eligible sources in Texas using two 2002 annual CAMx

36/12 km simulations:

• 2002 BART base case emissions scenario (w ith estimated 24-hour maximum VOC and PM

emissions for BART-eligible sources); and

• 2002 BART VOC and PM emissions zero-out scenario.

The 2002 BART base case emissions scenario w as based on the CENRAP 2002 typical base B base

case emissions scenario. The BART guidelines require that BART modeling use the maximum actual

24-hour emissions for each BART-eligible sour ce. The CENRAP 2002 typical scenario includes

average actual emissions for all sources. The maximum 24-hour actual emission rates are not readily

available for most sources. To account for th e differences between maximum 24-hour actual and

average typical actual, the average typical actual emissions for potential BART-eligible sources in the

CENRAP 2002 typical base B base case emissions scen ario were doubled at the suggestion of EPA

Region 6. EPA noted that this assumption should pr ovide a conservative estimate of maximum actual

24-hour emissions for most sources.

Visibility impacts were calculat ed at each Class I area using the differences in 24-hour PM

concentrations between the 2002 BART base case and 2002 BART zero-out case following the

procedures given in EPA’s BART modeling guid ance (EPA, 2005). The BART procedures were

outlined in the Federal Land Managers Air Qu ality Related Values Workgroup report (FLAG,

2000) and EPA regional haze guidan ce documents. These procedures use the IMPROVE reconstructed

mass extinction equation. Instead of using measure d PM concentrations from an IMPROVE monitor,

incremental PM concentrations from the differe nces in the CAMx 2002 BART base case and 2002

BART VOC/PM zero-out runs were used in the equation.

The IMPROVE reconstructed mass ex tinction equation was used to estimate visibility at Class I areas

using IMPROVE monitoring data and has also been used for evaluating visibility impacts at Class I

areas due to new sources using modeling output of a single source or group of sources.

The total light extinction due to a source (bsource) , in units of inverse Megameters (Mm-1), is

assumed to be the sum of the light extinction due to the source’s individual PM species concentration

impacts times an extinction efficiency coefficient:

bsource = bSO4 + bNO3 + bOC + bEC+ bsoil + bcoarse

bSO4 = 3 [(NH4)2SO4]f(RH) bNO3 = 3 [NH4NO3]f(RH) bOC = 4 [OMC]

bEC = 10 [EC]

bSoil = 1 [Soil]

bcoarse = 0.6 [Coarse Mass]

### Page 23

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Here f(RH) are relative humidity adjustment factors. As recommended by EPA BART modeling

guidance, Class I area specific monthly average f(RH) values were used (EPA, 2005; 2003a). The

concentrations in the square brackets are in μ g/m3 and are based on the differences in concentrations

between the 2002 BART base case and 2002 BA RT VOC/PM zero-out case. Although CAMx

explicitly models ammonia and ammonium, the IMPROVE extinction equation assumes that SO4 and

NO3 are completely neutralized by ammonium. Th e OMC in the above equation is Organic Matter

Carbon, and OC is Organic Carbon. When usi ng IMPROVE measurements, the current IMPROVE

extinction equation assumed an OMC/OC ratio of 1.4 (i.e., the IMPROVE OC measurement is

multiplied by 1.4 to obtain OMC). Because CAMx direc tly models OMC, the 1.4 factor was not used.

The following species mappings were used to map the CAMx species to tho se used in the IMPROVE

reconstructed mass extinc tion equation given above:

[(NH4)2SO4] = 1.375 x PSO4 [NH4NO3] = 1.290 x PNO3

[OMC] = POA + SOA1 + SOA2 + SOA3 + SOA4+SOA5 [EC] = PEC

[Soil] = FPRM + FCRS [Coarse Mass] = CPRM + CCRS

Here PSO4 and PNO3 are the CAMx particulate sulf ate and nitrate species. POA is the CAMx primary

Particulate Organic Aerosol species, whereas SOA1 through 5 are the five Secondary Organic Aerosol

species carried in CAMx. Primary Elemental Carbon is represented by PEC in CAMx. CAMx carries

two species that represent the other PM2.5 components (i.e., fine particles that are not SO4, NO3, EC

or OC), one for the crustal (FCRS), and the othe r for the remainder of the primary emitted PM2.5

species (FPRM). Similarly, CAMx carries two species to represent Coarse Mass (PM10- 2.5), one for

crustal (CCRS), and one for other (CPRM).

The Haze Index (HI) for the source is calculated in deciviews from the source’s extinction plus natural

background using the following formula:

HIsource = 10 ln[(bsource + bnatural)/10]

Here, bnatural is the Class I area specific clean na tural visibility background (natural conditions);

EPA’s default values are used in this analysis (EPA, 2003b).

The source’s HI is compared against natural c onditions to assess the significance of the source’s

visibility impact. EPA guidance lists natural conditions (bnatural) by Class I areas in terms of Mm-1

(EPA, 2003b) and assumes clean conditions with no ma n-made or weather interference. The visibility

significance metric for evaluating BART sources is th e change in deciview (del-dv) from the source’s

and natural conditions Haze Indices:

del-dv = HIsource – HInatural = 10 ln[(bsour ce + bnatural)/10] - 10 ln[bnatural/10]

= 10 ln[(bsource + bnatural)/bnatural]

The visibility impacts from the CAMx BART VOC/PM zero-out run was first calculated using all PM

species (i.e., those associated with both VOC and PM precursors). They then made separate visibility

calculations using just those PM species associated with the elimination of the BART VOC emissions

(i.e., SOA1, SOA2, SOA3, SOA4, and SOA5) and then just those speci es associated with the

elimination of the primary PM emissions (i.e., PSO4, PNO3, POA, PEC, FCRS, FPRM, FCRS and

CCRS).

VOC: bsource = 4 [SOA1+SOA2+SOA3+SOA4+SOA5]

PM: bsource = 3 f(RH)([1.375PSO4]+[1.290PNO3]) + 4[POA] + 10[PEC] +

1[FPRM+FCRS] + 0.6[CPRM+CCRS])

The del-dv impacts were calculated by ENVIRON at each Class I area within the CENRAP southern

BART modeling region that contains Texas, as specified in the Appendix A (CENRAP BART

Modeling Protocol -Alpine and ENVIRON, 2005). Ta ble C-1 lists the Class I areas included in the

### Page 24

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD BART screening analysis and also includes the d eciviews and the extinctions associated with the

Annual Average Natural Conditions and Best 20% Natural Conditions of these Class I areas

(EPA,2003b). Because the PSAT runs are computationally resource intensive, not all of the Class I

sites analyzed were included in the 12 km domain. Sites analyzed, which were in the 36 km domain,

are noted is Table C-1.

### Page 25

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Table C

− 1. From ENVIRON App. C Table 2-1:Class I areas included in the analysis.

EPA’s BART guidance suggests that a significan ce threshold to determine whether a source

contributes significantly to visibility impairment at a Class I area should be no greater than 0.5 dv.

Thus, if the del-dv due to all potential BART-elig ible sources VOC and/or PM emissions at every

Class I area and for all days from 2002 are < 0.5 dv, then VOC and PM emissions from all potential

BART-eligible sources may be determined to cont ribute insignificantly to visibility impairment.

Therefore, the VOC and/or PM emissions from each potential BART source would not be significant.

Under these conditions, VOC and/or PM emissions would no longer need to be considered.

Because there were days in 2002 for which the de l-dv is > 0.5 dv in the BART VOC/PM zero-out

screening analysis, the results were examined in mo re detail, including the an alysis of the frequency,

magnitude and duration of the visibility impact s. The BART guidance suggests comparing the 98 th



### percentile del-dv at any Class I area with the 0.5 dv significant threshold to determine whether a

significant visibility impact woul d reasonably be expected to occur in the context of CALPUFF

analyses. Using one year of modeling results (2002) the 98 th 

### percentile would correspond to the eighth

highest 24-hour average visibility impact at each Class I area. PM and VOC were also analyzed

separately to determine if one of these pollutants c ould be determined to impact insignificantly to

visibility impairment at the Class I areas.

EPA’s BART guidance lists a significance threshold for contributing to visibility impairment at a Class I

area as a 0.5 change in deciview (del-dv) over na tural conditions (EPA, 2005). The guidance also states

that the 98 th 

### percentile (e.g., eighth highest in a year) change in deciview value should be compared

against the 0.5 del-dv significance threshold. EP A’s visibility natural conditions guidance document

lists three default natural conditio n values corresponding to best 20% days, worst 20% days, and annual IMPROVE

sites Longitude Latitude Class I Area Domain Best 20% Annual average

dv bntural

(Mm-1) dv bnatural

(Mm-1)

BAND1 -106.27 35.78 Bandelier 12km 1.90 12.1 4.46 15.6

BIBE1 -103.18 29.30 Big Bend 12km 1.81 12.0 4.37 15.5

BOAP1 -106.85 33.87 Bosque del Apache 12km 1.85 12.0 4.41 15.5

CACR1 -94.14 34.45 Caney Creek 12km 3.65 14.4 7.49 21.1

GUMO1 -104.81 31.83 Guadalupe Mountains,

Carlsbad Caverns 12km 1.91 12.1 4.47 15.6

HEGL1 -92.92 36.61 Hercules-Glade 12km 3.59 14.3 7.43 21.0

SACR1 -104.40 33.46 Salt Creek 12km 1.87 12.1 4.43 15.6

SAPE1 -106.85 36.01 San Pedro Parks 12km 1.91 12.1 4.47 15.6

UPBU1 -93.20 35.83 Upper Buffalo 12km 3.60 14.3 7.44 21.0

WHIT1 -105.54 33.47 White Mountain 12km 1.86 12.0 4.42 15.6

WHPE1 -105.45 36.59 Wheeler Peak, Pecos 12km 1.95 12.2 4.51 15.7

WIMO1 -98.71 34.73 Wichita Mountains 12km 3.39 14.0 7.23 20.6

WHRI1 -106.82 39.15 Flat Tops, Maroon

Bells-Snowmass,

West 36km 1.96 12.2 4.52 15.7

BRET1 -89.21 29.12 Breton 36km 3.85 14.7 7.69 21.6

GRSA1 -105.52 37.72 Great Sand Dunes 36km 1.98 12.2 4.54 15.7

WEMI1 -107.80 37.66 La Garita, Black

Canyon of the

Gunnison, 36km 1.94 12.1 4.50 15.7

MEVE1 -108.49 37.20 Mesa Verde 36km 1.97 12.2 4.53 15.7

MING1 -90.14 36.97 Mingo 36km 3.59 14.3 7.43 21.0

### Page 26

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD average. The guidance recommends that natural condi tions corresponding to the best 20% days be used

when calculating the BART visibility significance me tric. However, the use of the best 20% natural

conditions in the BART significance test was chal lenged by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).

As part of the settlement to this challenge, EPA then allowed the use of annual average natural

conditions in the calculation of the BART visibility significance metrics (Paise, 2006 a, b). The CAMx

analysis analyzed the change in deciview (del-dv) due to each group of BART sources in Class I areas

using both the maximum and 98 th 

### percentile values, and both the b est 20% and annual average natural

conditions. The final recommendation on the si gnificance determination was based on the 98 th



### percentile change in deciview ove r annual average natural conditions.

We note that this initial screening being discussed in C-1 and C-2 for the VOC/PM2.5 and NOx/SOx

source groups and initial model plants was conducted in 2006. In Fe bruary 2007 EPA raised concern

with using the 98 th 

### percentile for sources analyzed with CAMx, which does not have the same

overestimation bias concerns that CALPUFF has that led to the selection of using the 98 th 

### percentile

after the original BART Guidelines proposed using the 1 st 

### High. Based on comments and concerns

about CALPUFF overestimati ng impacts (chemistry, etc.) EPA finalized the BART Guidelines using

the 98 th 

### percentile in 2005. EPA discussed the concer ns with TCEQ and evaluated the existing

screening that was done at the time that is being di scussed in C-1.and C-2. Based on our evaluation of

the modeling and the sources that screened out we (TCEQ and EPA) did not see the need to redo the

analysis for the sources that had been screened out as there was enough information to evaluate and

conclude that more analysis of 1 st 

### High would not lead to different conclusions as there was still

conservatism as source groups had 3 or 4 or more fa cilities and the cumulative impacts were below 0.5

deciviews with the 8 th 

### High. TCEQ and EPA agreed that furt her evaluation and screening would be

done using the Maximum (1 st 

### High) for work after February 2007 (Work discussed in Section D). We

will discuss in more detail why the initial analysis was still acceptable in the discussion of the technical

analysis and conclusions in C-1.and C-2. (EPA-Snyder 2007, TCEQ -Knud 2007, TCEQ BART

Screening Clarification 2007).

BART-Eligible Sources’ VOC and PM 10 

### Emissions

Initially the CAMx modeling performed was the BART screening analysis estimating the visibility

impacts at Class I areas from VOC and PM emissions from all potential BART-eligible sources in

Texas. The visibility impacts at Class I areas are expressed as the change in deciview (del-dv)

compared to natural conditions. If the estimated 98 th 

### percentile del-dv compared to the annual average

natural conditions due to VOC and PM emissions fro m all potential BART-eligible sources is < 0.5 at

all Class I areas, then VOC and PM emissions from each BART source would be < 0.5 del-dv and

therefore may require no further BART analyses.

Table C-2 lists the EGU BART sources with VOC an d/or PM2.5/PM10 emissions that are the annual

average emission estimates from the CENRAP 2002 data base. To estimate the highest 24-hour actual

emissions to be used in the BART analysis, th e modeling used doubled annual average emissions

(double the values in the table).

We note that TCEQ contacted and provided summa ries of how sources were modeled in the CAMx

modeling to each of the facilities that screened out . TCEQ requested concurrence and certification

from each facility that the emission rates and stack parameters were appr opriate to support the

conclusions. This information was included in the TX RH SIP Appendix 9-7 document.Page 27EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDTable C-2 From ENVIRON App. CTable 3-1.Potential BART-eligible EGU sources and their VOC/PM10emissionsVOC(tpy)VOCPM Zero-NeedsFurtherIDAccountCompanyPlantPM10Zero-OutOutgroupAnalysisfor PM(tpy)1BC0015LLOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITYLOWER COLORADO RIVE3252pass3A2BG0057UCITY PUBLIC SERVICESOMMERS DEELY SPRUC1471473pass1A3BG0186ICITY PUBLIC SERVICEV.H. BRAUNIG PLANT4358pass3A4CD0013KAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYLA PALMA POWER STAT1330pass25CI0012DTEXAS GENCO LPCEDAR BAYOU STATION113157passpass6DB0251UTXU ELECTRIC COMPANYNORTH LAKE STEAM EL2227pass27EE0029TEL PASO ELECTRIC CONEWMAN STATION3154pass28FB0025UTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPVALLEY STEAM ELEC.4458pass3A9FC0018GLOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITYFAYETTE POWER PROJE1671255pass210FG0020VTEXAS GENCO LPW A PARISH STATION89281pass211FI0020WTXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LPBIG BROWN134933pass3A12GB0037TTEXAS GENCO LPP H ROBINSON STATIO4362pass1A13GJ0043KSOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER1724pass214HQ0012TTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPDECORDOVA STEAM ELE85113pass215JI0030KAEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANYW.T.U.-FT. PHANTOM2636pass1A16LN0081BXCEL ENERGYJONES STATION4385pass3A17MB0116CTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPTRADINGHOUSE STM EL89116pass3A18ME0006ASOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWERWILKESWILKES POWER PLT4156pass219MM0023JTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPSANDOW STEAM ELECTR67735pass1A20MO0014LTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPMORGAN CREEK STEAM2532pass1A21MQ0009FENTERGY GULF STATES INCLEWIS CREEK PLANT6589pass222NE0024EAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYBARNEY M DAVIS POWE4666pass2Page 28EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD23NE0025CLON C HILL POWERLON C HILL710pass1A24NE0026AAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYNUECES BAY POWER ST2839pass3A25OC0013OENTERGY GULF STATES INCSABINE PLANT168234pass3A26PG0040TSOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICENICHOLS STATION1019pass1A27PG0041RSOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICEHARRINGTON STATION971546pass228RL0020KTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPMARTIN LAKE ELECTRI257881pass1A29TA0352ITXU GENERATION COMPANY LPEAGLE MOUNTAIN STAT1927pass1A30TF0012DSOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWERWELSH POWER PLANT891755pass3BX31TF0013BTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPMONTICELLO STM ELE2453297pass1BX32TG0044CAEP TEXAS1223pass3A33TH0004DELECTRIC UTILITY DEPTDECKER CREEK POWER569pass1A34VC0003DVICTORIA POWER58pass1A35WC0028QTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPPERMIAN BSN STM ELE6082pass3A36WE0005GLAREDO POWER1119pass237YB0017VTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPGRAHAM STEAM ELECTR1927pass2Page 29EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDTable C-3 From ENVIRON App. CTable 3-2.Potential BART-eligible non-EGU sources and their VOC/PM10emissionsVOCZeroOutPMZeroOutNeedsIDAccountCompanyPlantVOC(tpy)PM10FurtherAnalysisfor PMNote(tpy)1AB0012WDUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICESFULLERTON GAS PLANT31720Pass3seeExcluded2AC0017BABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP813Passnote(PM10<10tpy)seeNo longer BART3AC0019UEXAS FOUNDRIES180226PassnoteeligibleseeExcluded4AG0024GPUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS CORPFASHING PLANT391Passnote(PM10<10tpy)5BG0045ECAPITOL CEMENT DIV CAPITOLPORTLAND CEMENT9540Pass2C6BJ0001TCHEMICAL LIME LTDCHEMICAL LIME--CLIF4224Pass37BL0002SAMOCO CHEMICAL COCHOCOLATE BAYOU PLN417130Pass1AseeExcluded8BL0021OBASF CORPORATIONFREEPORT SITE384Passnote(PM10<10tpy)9BL0038USOLUTIA INC26423Pass2AC10BL0082RTHE DOW CHEMICAL COPLANT B51778Pass2C11BL0113IEQUISTAR28265Pass1A12BL0268BEQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP39713Pass313BL0758CCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICALSWEENY COMPLEX109103Pass1AseeExcluded14CA0011BJ.L. DAVIS GAS PROCESSINGLULING GAS PLANT91Passnote(PM10<10tpy)15CB0003MALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALSPOINT COMFORT PLANT176296Pass1A16CB0028TUNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONSEADRIFT PLANT49260Pass1A17CG0010GINTERNATIONAL PAPER CO1322578Pass2AAXseeExcluded18CG0012CENBRIDGE PIPELINESBRYANS MILL PLANT21Passnote(PM10<10tpy)Page 30EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD19CI0022ADYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES55321Pass320CR0020CCOPANO PROCESSING LP55110pass1AseeExcluded21CY0019HDYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICESWADDELLCOMPRESSOR351passnote(PM10<10tpy)22EB0057BHUNTSMAN POLYMERS878107pass1AseeNo longer BART23EB0197HDUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES2457passnoteeligible24ED0011DCHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN340157pass325ED0034ONORTH TEXAS CEMENT COMPANYNORTH TEXAS CEMENT15448pass1B26ED0051OOWENS CORNING100298pass327ED0066BTXI OPERATIONS, L.P.MIDLOTHIAN PLANT1885pass1A28FG0036GTXI OPERATION LPCLODINE EXPANDED SH577pass1A29GB0001RBP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANYBP AMOCO CHEMICAL T50093pass3BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA IN30GB0004LTEXASTEXAS CITY REFINERY1180737pass2B31GB0055RMARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUMTEXAS CITY REFINERY478272pass332GB0073PVALERO REFINING CO TEXASTEXAS CITY REFINERY153150pass3seeExcluded33GB0076JUNION CARBIDE CORPVINYL ACETATE FACIL1540passnote(PM10<10tpy)34GH0003QCABOT CORPORATIONPAMPA PLANT102555pass335GH0004OCELANESE CHEMICALCHEMICALMANUFACTUR644194pass1A36HD0029CA.N.R. PIPELINE COMPANYE.G. HILL COMPRESSO8233pass2BseeExcluded37HG0033BEQUISTAR CHEMICALS LPCHANNELVIEWCOMPLEX290passnote(PM10<10tpy)38HG0048LLYONDELL CITGO REFINING L PLYONDELL-CITGO REFI888284pass1A39HG0126QHOECHST CELANESE CHEMICALCLEAR LAKE PLANT334601pass340HG0130CVALERO REFINING TEXAS LPHOUSTON REFINERY252188pass2C41HG0175DCROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUMPASADENA PLANT570687pass1BPage 31EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD42HG0218KEI DUPONT30635pass343HG0228HEXXON CHEMICAL COBAYTOWN OLEFINS PLA20950pass2C44HG0229FEXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COBAYTOWN CHEMICAL PL74675pass345HG0232QEXXONMOBIL CORPEXXONMOBIL REF & SU3983761pass1B46HG0310VCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICALCHEVRON CHEMICAL CO364211pass1AseenoteExcluded47HG0558GATOFINA CHEMICALS INCATOFINA INC111pass(PM10<10tpy)48HG0562PTEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LPTX PETROCHEMICALS L4851pass349HG0632TROHM & HAAS TEXASDEER PARK PLANT578234pass350HG0659WSHELL OIL CODEER PARK PLANT2219359pass2AB51HG0697ORHODIA, INC.HOUSTON PLANT328pass1A52HG1451SOSYVINYLSLP24536pass2C53HH0019HNORIT AMERICAS INCNORIT AMERICAS INC163168pass354HH0042MEASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANYTEXAS OPERATIONS4257273pass1B55HK0014MTEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT COTEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT153272pass2ACseenoteExcluded56HR0018TVALENCE MIDSTREAM LTDCOMO PLT76pass(PM10<10tpy)57HT0011QALON USA LPBIG SPRING REFINERY51791pass2B58HT0027BSID RICHARDSON CARBON COBIG SPRING CARBON B1719pass2CDEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONSBORGER59HW0008SBORGER CARBONBLACK10071pass2ACseenoteExcluded60HW0013CCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO4079pass(PM10<10tpy)61HW0017RSID RICHARDSON CARBONBORGER CARBONBLACK2111pass1A62HW0018PPHILLIPS 66 COBORGER REFINERY14521pass3seenoteNo longer BARTeligible63HX2897UBP AMOCO POLYMERS INC2498pass64JB0016MVINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC.W RANCH COMP STA VA5313pass2C65JC0003KWESTVACO103236pass2BPage 32EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD66JE0005HATOFINA PETROCHEMICALS INCPORT ARTHUR REFINER632529pass2CTHE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO67JE0039N152833pass1AseenoteExcluded68JE0042BPREMCOR REFINING GROUPPORT ARTHUR REFINER1353pass(PM10<10tpy)69JE0052VHUNTSMAN CORPORATIONPORT NECHES PLANT30458pass3seenoteExcluded70JE0065MEXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO1042pass(PM10<10tpy)71JE0067IEXXONMOBIL OIL CORPBEAUMONT REFINERY462574pass3seeExcluded72JE0091LSUN MARINE TERMINAL400passnote(PM10<10tpy)73JE0135QHUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORP52068pass2B74JE0343HBMC HOLDINGS INCBMC HOLDINGS INC2463pass1A75JH0025OJOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL75141pass2AC76MB0123FLEHIGH CEMENT COMPANYLEHIGH PORTLAND CEM10225pass2BseenoteExcluded77MC0002HENBRIDGE PIPELINETILDEN GAS PLANT360pass(PM10<10tpy)78MH0009HCELANESE LIMITED127496pass1B79MM0001TALCOA INCALCOA SANDOW PLANT152254pass1A80MR0008TDIAMOND SHAMROCK REFININGMCKEE PLANTS818128pass2C81NB0037FTXI OPERATIONS, L.P.STREETMAN PLANT284181pass382NE0022ITICONA POLYMERS INCBISHOP FACILITY30931pass383NE0027VCITGO REFINING & CHEMICALSCORPUS CHRISTI REFI666622pass1A84NE0043AVALERO REFINING COMPANYCOMPLEX 6B 7 8823175pass385NE0120HKOCH PETROLEUM GROUP LPCORPUS CHRISTI EAST183288pass386NE0122DFLINT HILLS RESOURCES LPWEST REFINERY24013pass1AseeNo longer BART87OA0024INORTHERN NATURAL GAS COSPEARMAN PLANT3813passnoteeligible88OC0007JEI DUPONT DENEMOURS & COSABINE RIVER WORKS104087pass2ACseeExcludedPage 33EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD89PE0024QDUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICESWAHA GAS PLANT1164passnote(PM10<10tpy)seenoteNo longer BARTeligible90TH0010IAUSTIN WHITE LIME CO4367pass91VC0008QEI DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COEI DU PONT DE NEMOU230187pass2B92WH0014SWICHITA FALLS PLANT19181pass2CseenoteNo longer BARTeligible93WN0021GDEVON GAS SERVICES, L.P.BRIDGEPORT22628passseenoteExcluded94WN0042VDYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES30pass(PM10<10tpy)

### Page 34

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

## VOC SCREENING ANALYSIS

Figure C-1 (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-1.) The visibility impacts (del-dv) at

Class I areas from all eligible Texas BART sources’ VOC emissions.

The visibility impacts due to all Texas BART s ources’ VOC emissions were not significant because

they were well below 0.5 del-dv threshold, both for the 98 th 

### percentile value and the maximum impact at

all Class I areas. Therefore, each Texas BART source’s VOC emissions are < 0.5 del-dv and screened

out from further BART considerations for VOC emissions.

### Page 35

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

Figure C-2 (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-2.) The visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I

areas from all eligible Texas BART sources’ PM (PM2.5/PM10) emissions.

The preliminary zero-out modeling indicated that th e visibility impacts at one or more Class I areas

due to PM emissions from all potential BART-elig ible sources in Texas exceeded the 0.5 del-dv

threshold (using the 98 th 

### percentile), therefore the group of all Texas BART PM sources were

analyzed further.



## Inert Primary PM Screening Analysis

Because only primary PM emissions were being considered in these runs, chemistry was not

needed. The procedures for evaluating the visibility impacts from the inert CAMx

simulations are the same as described for the PM impacts from the zero-out runs. However,

instead of using concentrations differences from the 2002 BART base case and 2002 zeroout case, the total concentrations due to a ll BART sources in each BART group from the

CAMx inert simulation were used.

The larger visibility impacts from the group of all PM BART eligible emission sources

occurred at the Class I areas near sources in northeast Texas (Caney Creek/CACR, HerculesGlade/HEGL, and Upper Buffalo/UPBU), while smaller impacts appeared near sources in

west Texas (Big Bend/BIBE and Guadalupe Mountains/GUMO) and north Texas (Wichita

Mountains/WIMO). Given this information, TCEQ had further analyses carried out by

dividing the BART PM sources into subgroups, with consideration of their proximity to

Class I areas and the magnitude of their PM emissions.

Prior to conducting this further PM modeling analyses though, some BART sources were

removed from the screening proces s. Six non-EGU accounts (WN0021G, EB0197H,

OA0024I, TH0010I, HX2897U, and AC0019U) were dropped from the potential BARTeligible list based on information supplied by the sources to the TCEQ (see note – ‘No

### Page 36

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

longer BART – eligible’ in Table C-3). Additio nally, TCEQ eliminated 15 sources with PM

emissions under 10 tons per year (tpy) based on the establishment of a de minimis threshold

using 375 tpy and 50 km or 750 tpy and 100 km (based on 2002 actuals) as suggested in

EPA’s BART Guidance (EPA, 2005). TCEQ then divided the remaining sources were into

EGU and non-EGU categories. These source gr oups were then further divided into

subgroups. Inert model runs were conducted with these groups, and if any source groups

failed the 0.5 del-dv threshold, the sources in that group were broken down even further and

re-analyzed. A list of BART-eligible EGU and non-EGU sources’ PM 10 

### emissions and their

associated groups are shown in Ta bles C-2 and C-3, respectively.

The subgroup analyses for primary PM emissions were made for each of these BART source

groups using CAMx inert simulations. The re sults for potential BART EGU sources are

shown in Figures C-3a-e. The potential BART -eligible EGU sources, except EGU source

group #1B and 3B (account TF0013B and TF00 12D, respectively), passed the BART PM

group screening test. Accounts TF0013B and TF0012D impacted visibility impairment at

CACR by approximately 0.61 del-dv and 0.72 del-dv, respectively. Further modeling

analyses using better estimates of the highest actual 24-hour emissions may produce values <

0.5 del-dv for these two sources

Figure C3a (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-3a.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from EGU Source Group 1A

### Page 37

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Figure C-3b. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-3b.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from EGU Source Group 1B, account TF0013B. Del-dv > 0.5 at CACR for all

metrics and HEGL/UPBU for 2 of 4 metrics

Figure C-3c. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-3c.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from EGU Source Group 2.

### Page 38

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

Figure C-3d. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-3d.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from EGU Source

Group 3A

Figure C-3e. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-3e.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at

Class I areas due to PM emissions from EGU Source Group 3B, account TF0012D. Del-dv >

0.5 at CACR for all metrics and HEGL/UPBU for 3 of 4 metrics.

### Page 39

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD EPA Review Summary

EGU Group 1A includes TXU Martin Lake, TXU Sandow, and CPS Sommers Deely which

had 881 tpy, 735 tpy, and 1473 tpy of PM respectiv ely and 8 other smaller PM sources spread

over Texas. The results for all the PM Max Avg and 98 th 

### percentile were below 0.5 deciview

for all Class I areas. EGU Group 1B (Account TF0013B- TXU Monticello) had 3297 tpy of

PM and did not screen out for this mode ling. EGU Group #2 (13 units – 2 large and 11

smaller PM emissions) was below 0.5 deciview fo r all Class I areas for all metrics with the

exception of being slightly over at GUMO fo r the PM Max B20% metric. EGU Group #3A

was approximately 0.4 deciviews for all metric s at all Class I areas. EGU Group 3B (Account

TF0012D- SWEPCO Welsh) ha d 1755 tpy of PM and did not screen out for this modeling as

several metrics were above 0.5 del-dv including the PM 98 th 

### Percentile value at CACR.

Therefore of the 37 EGU facili ties screened for PM emissions, 35 screened out and do not

have to be further analyzed for PM BART.

As discussed above, each Texas BART eligible source’s VOC emissi ons are < 0.5 del-dv and

screened out from further BART considerations for VOC emissions.

Non-EGU PM screening analysis

The results for potential BART-eligible non-E GU sources are shown in Figure 3-4a-f. The

potential BART eligible non-EGU sources, except non-EGU group 2AA (account CG0010G),

are under the 0.5 del-dv threshol d and therefore may require no further BART analyses.

Account CG0010G estimated 98 th 

### percentile visibility impair ment at CACR was 0.92 del-dv

and therefore must perform further analyses.

### Page 40

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

Figure C-4a. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4a.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at

Class I areas due to PM emissions from non-EGU Source Group 1A.



### Figure C-4b. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4b.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class

I areas due to PM emissions from non-EGU Source Group 1B

### Page 41

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD

Figure C-4c. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4c.) Visibility impacts (deldv) at Class I areas due to PM emissions from non-EGU Group Source 2AA, account

CG0010G. Del-dv > 0.5 at CACR for all metrics and HEGL/UPBU for 2 and 3 of 4

metrics, respectively.

Figure C-4d. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4d.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from non-EGU Source Group 2AB

### Page 42

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Figure C-4e. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4e.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from non-EGU Source Group 2AC

Figure C-4f. (App. C –ENVIRON Report Figure 3-4f.) Visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

due to PM emissions from non-EGU Source Group 3

### Page 43

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD EPA Review Summary Non-EGU PM CAMx screening

In evaluating the Figures above and Table C- 3 for the source groupings several conclusions

can be made. Source Groups 1A, 2AB, a nd 2AC all screen out using the PM 98 th 

### Percentile

and Maximum for the Average approach. Source Group 2AA did not screen out because all

four metrics, including the 98 th 

### Percentile for the Average approach, were above 0.5 delta dv

at CACR. Therefore Source Group 2AA (Intern ational Paper - Acc ount CG0010G) did not

screen out in source grouping approach w ith CAMx and was further evaluated using

CALPUFF.

Source Group 1B was below 0.5 delta-dv for the 98 th 

### percentile Max Avg, but was

approximately 0.65 delta-dv for CACR for the Maximum Max. Average. Using the initial

methodology of the 98 th 

### percentile, the group screens out and TCEQ and EPA agreed there

were reasonable arguments for not looking back on the initial work with the tougher threshold

of Maximum Max Average. At the time EPA looked at the sources in each of the groups that

passed and that did not pass. Group 1B included 5 facilities: 1. North Texas Cement near

Midlothian with 448/898 PM tpy 2002 actual/m odeled (approx. 370 km to CACR) ; 2. Crown

Refinery near Pasadena with 687/1374 PM tpy 2002 actual/modeled (approx. 530 km to

CACR); 3. ExxonMobil Ref and SU near with 761/1522 PM tpy 2002 actual/modeled

(approx. 520 km to CACR); 4. Eastman Chemical near Longview with 273/546 PM tpy 2002

actual/modeled (234 km to CACR); and 5. Celanese Limited near Pasadena with 496/992 PM

tpy 2002 actual/modeled (approx. 530 km to CACR). Being the closest, Eastman is the most

likely contributor to the highest values at CACR. Overall there ar e three other facilities in the

Houston area that also likely transport towards CACR when Eastman does. Eastman had

much lower emissions than the three Houston area facilities 546 t py vs. 3888 tpy of PM

modeled. Weighting the emissions and the proxim ity difference that Eastman is approximately

50% of the distance of the Houston area sources, we think it is reasonable to determine that

the contribution due to Eastman on the Maximum Max Avg. value is likely less than 0.5 delta

dv. We think it is reasonable to determine that the contribution of Eastman to CACR is such

that a determination can be made that the faci lity would screen out if individual source impact

modeling were done with even the Maximum Max Avg. impact value. Therefore EPA does

not have a concern with screening out Eastman.

The other Source Group that had this same conundrum was Source Group 3 which was below

0.5 delta-dv for the 98 th 

### percentile Max Avg, but was appr oximately 0.65 delta-dv for CACR

for the Maximum Max. Average. Source Group 3 included 23 sources with no specific

sources overly dominating the group and potential impacts at CACR. Norit was the closest to

CACR at a distance of 209 km (near Marshall). There were about 6 facilities SW, S, or SE of

Dallas (on the order of 350-500 km from CACR), a number of facilities in the Houston area

(on the order of 500 km from CACR), a fe w in the Beaumont area, a couple in the

Corpus/Victoria area, and about 3 facilities in the panhandle. Compari ng emissions, Norit had

336 tpy vs. 8368 tpy of PM for the rest of the group with the lion’s share being from sources

in the Houston and Beaumont areas. We thi nk it is reasonable to determine that the

contribution of Norit to CACR is such that a determination can be made that the facilities

would screen out if individual source impact modeling were done with even the Maximum

Max Avg. impact value. Therefore EPA does not ha ve a concern with scr eening out Norit.

We concur with TCEQ’s assessment that all but three BART eligible sources screened out of

BART applicability for PM. The thee sour ces are two EGU facilities (TF0013B, TF0012D)

and one non-EGU account (CG0010G) {Commonly know n in the RH SIP as TXU Monticello

and Southwestern Public Service’s Welsh f acilities and Internati onal Paper Co. near

Texarkana}. We also concur with TCEQ’s c onclusions that all BART eligible sources

screened out from further BART analysis.

### Page 44

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Other Issues



### TCEQ indicated that one of the BART-eligible EGU sources, account CI0012D, was not

included in TCEQ’s PM zero-out modeling runs. This account has a relatively small PM Q/D

of 0.25 tpy/km and the nearest Class I area is BIBE. Other accounts in the same area around

Corpus Christi, which have PM Q/D ranging from 0.02 - 4.7, were all screened out in the

analysis above. EPA concurs with TCEQ’s an alysis that account CI0012D can be reasonably

assumed to pass the screening analysis as well based on the PM Q/D comparison.

### Page 45

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD PROCEDURES FOR SCREENING MOD ELING OF BART SOURCES’ SO 2 

### AND NO X



### EMISSIONS

PSAT Visibility Impacts

The sulfate and nitrate families of PSAT tracers were utilized for the PSAT BART screening

analysis. The visibility impacts at each Class I area were calculated in a similar manner as

described above for the zero-out modeling, only the PSO4 and PNO3 concentrations from each

PSAT BART source group were used in the ex tinction equation. The IMPROVE reconstructed

mass extinction equation for each potential BART-eligible source group included the sulfate

and nitrate components

b group =

b SO4 + b NO3

b SO4 = 3

[(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ]f(RH)

b NO3 = 3

[NH 4 NO 3 ]f(RH)

The f(RH) are the monthly average relative hum idity adjustment factors, as recommended

by EPA’s guidance. The concentrations in the square brackets are in μ g/m 3 and are the

sulfate and nitrate from the PSAT output for each potential BART-eligible PSAT source

group (i). Sulfate and nitrate are assume d to be fully neutralized by ammonium:

[(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ] = 1.375 x PS4 i

[NH 4 NO 3 ] = 1.290 x PN3 i

The Haze Index (HI) for the source group is ca lculated in deciview from the source

group’s extinction plus natural back ground using the following formula:

HI group = 10 ln[(b group + b natural )/10]

The source’s HI is compared to natural conditi ons to assess the significance of the source’s

visibility impact. EPA guidance lists natural conditions (b natural ) by Class I area in terms of

Mm -1 and assumes clean conditions with no an thropogenic or weathe r interference. The

visibility significance metric for evaluating BART sources is the change in deciview (del-dv)

from the source’s and natural conditions haze indices:

del-dv = HI group – HI natural = 10 ln[(b group + b natural )/10] - 10 ln[b natural /10]

Modeling Policy and Procedures

The non-EGU potential BART-eligible sources were initially divided up into 10 source groups

for the PSAT screening analysis. CAMx/PSAT was run for the 2002 annual year on the 36/12

km grid with each potential BART-eligible sour ce flagged to use the new PSAT PiG feature.

### Page 46

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD The CENRAP average non-EGU BART SO 2 

### and NO X 

### em issions (Indicated in Table C-4)

were doubled to provide a conservative estima te of maximum 24-hour actual emissions.

As described for the zero-out run, if the de l-dv due to all sources in a source group at every

Class I area and for all days from 2002 is < 0.5 dv, then each potential BART-eligible source in

the source group would be < 0.5 dv. Thus, each source would contribute insignificantly to

visibility impairment.

PSAT Modeling for SO 2 and NO x emissions was performed for non-EGUs. The PM 2.5

provisions of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (C AIR) applied to Texas at the time of Texas’

submittal. The premise at the time wa s that CAIR satisfies the BART SO 2 and NO x

requirements for EGUs covered under CAIR PM 2.5 requirements and no analysis was needed

for these EGUs for BART for SO 2 

### and NO X



### .

Non-EGU Potential BART-Eligible Sources’ SO 2 and NO x Emissions

Table C-4 lists potential BA RT-eligible non-EGU sources’ SO 2 and NO x emissions and their

associated source groups that were used to perform screening modeling. Unlike the zero-out

CAMx modeling for VOC and PM emissions and inert CAMx modeling for PM emissions, the

group screening modeling for SO 2 and NO x emissions used the CAMx PSAT to track the

SO 4 and NO 3 contributions due to each BART source group.

The PSAT screening analysis initially divided up the potential BART-eligible non-EGU

sources into 10 source groups (referred to as the Round 1 groupings in Table C-4). The

assignment of potential BART-eligible non-EGU sources to the Round 1 source groups was

made by ranking each source in terms of their total SO 2 and NO x emissions divided by

distance to the closest Class I area (i.e., Q/D). The top ten percent of the sources with the

highest Q/D values were assi gned to Group 1 and so on, so th at the lower the source group

number the more likely the group would have a pote ntial visibility impact at a Class I areas due

to higher emissions and/or cl oseness to a Class I area. E ach BART source group in the

preliminary run consisted of approximately 9 to 11 separate accounts (i.e., potential BARTeligible non-EGU sources).Page 47EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDTable C-4 (EPA App. C Table 4-1) Classification of potentialBART-eligible non-EGU sources into Source Groups for BART groupscreening modeling using CAMx/PSAT/PiG.RoundRoundNeedsNOx*(tpy)SO2*(tpy)12FurtherAnalysisfor SOxand NOxIDAccountCompanyPlantGroupGroupNoteDUKE ENERGY FIELD1AB0012WSERVICESFULLERTON GASPLANT125623741XINTERNATIONALPAPER2CG0010GCO16193741XNORTH TEXASCEMENT COMPANY3ED0034ONORTH TEXASCEMENT257244341XBP PRODUCTS NORTH4GB0004LAMERICA IN TEXASTEXAS CITYREFINERY632040841XCHEMICALMANUFACTUR5GH0004OCELANESE CHEMICAL260940151X6HG0659WSHELL OIL CODEER PARKPLANT581169681XDEGUSSAENGINEEREDBORGER CARBON7HW0008SCARBONS BORGERBLACK44536041XSID RICHARDSONBORGER CARBON8HW0017RCARBONBLACK63835351X9JE0067IEXXONMOBIL OILCORPBEAUMONTREFINERY387197471X10HD0029CA.N.R. PIPELINECOMPANYE.G. HILLCOMPRESSO40280.42XPage 48EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD11HG0232QEXXONMOBIL CORPEXXONMOBIL REF& SU437213012XEASTMAN CHEMICALCOMPANY12HH0042MTEXASOPERATIONS26121052X13HR0018TVALENCE MIDSTREAMLTDCOMO PLT24727432X14HT0011QALON USA LPBIG SPRINGREFINERY34433112XSID RICHARDSON15HT0027BCARBON COBIG SPRINGCARBON B18531492XDIAMOND SHAMROCK16MR0008TREFININGMCKEE PLANTS154922452X17NB0037FTXI OPERATIONS, L.P.STREETMANPLANT69134682XCITGO REFINING &CHEMICALS18NE0027VCORPUS CHRISTIREFI120151032X19ED0066BTXI OPERATIONS, L.P.MIDLOTHIANPLANT13888933XMARATHON ASHLAND20GB0055RPETROLEUMTEXAS CITYREFINERY113423293X21GH0003QCABOT CORPORATIONPAMPA PLANT13353423XLYONDELL CITGOREFINING L P22HG0048LLYONDELL-CITGOREFI22887893X23HG0697ORHODIA, INC.HOUSTON PLANT6.850993X24HH0019HNORIT AMERICAS INCNORIT AMERICASINC4897843XVALERO REFINING25NE0043ACOMPANYCOMPLEX 6B 7 8131832333XPage 49EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDEI DUPONTDENEMOURS26OC0007J& COSABINE RIVERWORKS31257.33XDUKE ENERGY FIELDSERVICES27PE0024QWAHA GAS PLANT13115713XHOECHST CELANESE28HG0126QCHEMICALCLEAR LAKEPLANT94612024XVALERO REFININGTEXAS LP29HG0130CHOUSTONREFINERY46122434XCROWN CENTRAL30HG0175DPETROLEUMPASADENA PLANT56612914XTEXAS LEHIGHCEMENT31HK0014MCOTEXAS LEHIGHCEMENT11568054XATOFINAPETROCHEMICALS INC32JE0005HPORT ARTHURREFINER79610074X33MC0002HENBRIDGE PIPELINETILDEN GASPLANT1.922764XEI DU PONT DENEMOURS34VC0008Q& COEI DU PONT DENEMOU2723184XDUKE ENERGY FIELDNo longerBART35EB0197HSERVICES70904see noteeligibleDEVON GASSERVICES, L.P.No longerBARTeligible36WN0021GBRIDGEPORT9360.84see noteCAPITOL CEMENT DIVPage 50EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD37BG0045ECAPITOLPORTLANDCEMENT71885052X38BJ0001TCHEMICAL LIME LTDCHEMICAL LIME--CLIF7005095139BL0002SAMOCO CHEMICAL COCHOCOLATEBAYOU PLN2006125140BL0082RTHE DOW CHEMICALCOPLANT B18951.752X41HG0632TROHM & HAAS TEXASDEER PARKPLANT74810765142JC0003KWESTVACO14897252XLEHIGH CEMENTCOMPANY43MB0123FLEHIGHPORTLAND CEM53157653X44MM0001TALCOA INCALCOA SANDOWPLANT36145853XNORTHERN NATURALGAS CONo longerBARTeligible45OA0024ISPEARMAN PLANT86805seenotesee notePUEBLO MIDSTREAMGAS46AG0024GCORPFASHING PLANT20100564XJ.L. DAVIS GAS47CA0011BPROCESSINGLULING GASPLANT90102164XDYNEGY MIDSTREAMSERVICES48CY0019HWADDELLCOMPRESSOR5370.763XCHAPARRAL STEELExcluded(VOC49ED0011DMIDLOTHIAN4901226seenotemodeledout)Page 51EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD50HG0310VCHEVRON PHILLIPSCHEMICALCHEVRONCHEMICAL CO1013446551HW0018PPHILLIPS 66 COBORGERREFINERY5905964XTHE GOODYEAR TIREAND52JE0039NRUBBER CO11373.864XHUNTSMAN53JE0052VCORPORATIONPORT NECHESPLANT9428.86554JE0343HBMC HOLDINGS INCBMC HOLDINGSINC11924.363XExcluded(VOC55EB0057BHUNTSMANPOLYMERS4322.17seenotemodeledout)VALERO REFINING CO56GB0073PTEXASTEXAS CITYREFINERY63726476X57HG0228HEXXON CHEMICAL COBAYTOWNOLEFINS PLA10055.775EXXONMOBILCHEMICAL58HG0229FCOBAYTOWNCHEMICAL PL70110477X59HG0558GATOFINA CHEMICALSINCATOFINA INC1892076XVINTAGE PETROLEUM,INC.60JB0016MW RANCH COMPSTA VA1036076XHUNTSMANExcluded(VOC61JE0135QPETROCHEMICALCORP7351.87seenotemodeledout)Page 52EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD62NE0022ITICONA POLYMERSINCBISHOP FACILITY11294.875KOCH PETROLEUMGROUP LP63NE0120HCORPUS CHRISTIEAST9156576XExcluded(VOC64BL0113IEQUISTAR6361.48seenotemodeledout)ALCOA ALUMINA &CHEMICALS65CB0003MPOINT COMFORTPLANT9512087X66ED0051OOWENS CORNING3292688X67FG0036GTXI OPERATION LPCLODINEEXPANDED SH19463587XBP AMOCO CHEMICAL68GB0001RCOMPANYBP AMOCOCHEMICAL T813587XCHEVRON PHILLIPSExcluded(VOC69HW0013CCHEMICAL CO482808seenotemodeledout)70MH0009HCELANESE LIMITED6124388X71WH0014SWICHITA FALLS PLANT1072888XNo longerBART72TH0010IAUSTIN WHITE LIMECO3752538seenoteeligibleExcluded(VOC73BL0038USOLUTIA INC502109seenotemodeledout)CHEVRON PHILLIPSCHEMICAL74BL0758CSWEENYCOMPLEX3561599XPage 53EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDUNION CARBIDE75CB0028TCORPORATIONSEADRIFT PLANT4630.198X76CG0012CENBRIDGE PIPELINESBRYANS MILLPLANT840.399XDYNEGY MIDSTREAMExcluded(VOC77CI0022ASERVICES4061.69seenotemodeledout)Excluded(VOC78CR0020CCOPANO PROCESSINGLP4541.69seenotemodeledout)Excluded(VOC79HG0218KEI DUPONT1601759seenotemodeledout)TEXASPETROCHEMICALS80HG0562PLPTXPETROCHEMICALSL3341.999XFLINT HILLSRESOURCES LP81NE0122DWEST REFINERY2842799XABITIBICONSOLIDATED82AC0017BCORP280.31010X83BL0021OBASF CORPORATIONFREEPORT SITE3230.11010XExcluded(VOC84BL0268BEQUISTAR CHEMICALSLP6.20.810seenotemodeledout)CHANNELVIEWExcluded(VOC85HG0033BEQUISTAR CHEMICALSLPCOMPLEX11010seenotemodeledout)Page 54EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSDExcluded(VOC86HG1451SOSYVINYLSLP890.710seenotemodeledout)PREMCOR REFINING87JE0042BGROUPPORT ARTHURREFINER960.41010XEXXON MOBILCHEMICALExcluded(VOC88JE0065MCO29010seenotemodeledout)Excluded(VOC89JE0091LSUN MARINETERMINAL0.90.110seenotemodeledout)JOHNS MANVILLEINTERNATIONALJOHNSMANVILLE90JH0025O97191010XNo longerBART91AC0019UTEXAS FOUNDRIES3210seenoteeligibleBP AMOCO POLYMERSNo longerBART92HX2897UINC310.310seenoteeligibleExcluded(NOx<20tpyand93GB0076JUNION CARBIDE CORPVINYL ACETATEFACIL00seenoteseenoteSox<20tpy)Excluded(NOxDYNEGY MIDSTREAMSERVICES<20tpyandPage 55EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD*SO2and NOXaverage actual emissions from 2002 CENRAP database, modeling used doubled values as an estimate of 24-hour maximum emission rate94WN0042V00seenoteseenoteSOx<20tpy)

### Page 56

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Figure C-5 (EPA App. C. Figure 4-1.) Preliminary Round 1 visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas

from potential BART- eligible non-EGU source groups 1 to 4 (highest Q/D).



### SO 2 

### and NO X 

### Visibility Impacts from PSAT From Round 1 of Grouping

The preliminary Round 1 PSAT results indicated that all 10 BART source groups exceeded the

0.5 del-dv threshold of the key significance metric ( 98 th 

### percentile change in deciview over

annual average natural conditions) in at least one Class I area as shown. Therefore, the Round 1

BART grouping failed the screening test. As sh own in Figure C-5, the first four BART source

groups (i.e., ones with the highest Q/D values) cont ributed 2 to 3.5 del-dv at a Class I area using

the key metric ( 98 th 

### percentile/annual average, unfilled triangle in Figure C-5), whereas source

groups 5 through 10 contributed < 2 del-dv. The largest estimated visibility impairments

occurred at the Class I areas near northeast Texa s, in Arkansas and southern Missouri (CACR,

HEGL, and UPBU), while the next highest estimat ed visibility impacts occurred northern Texas

(WIMO in Texas) and near we stern Texas (BIBE and GUMO).

TCEQ decided that SO 2 and NO x emissions for sources in the first four groups from Round 1

would be unlikely to screen out even with fu rther reducing the group sizes based on the size of

impacts predicted. TCEQ concentrated the next Round (Round 2) groupi ng analysis of the SO 2 /

NO x BART screening modeling effort on lower contributing BART source groups (source

groups 5 to 10 From Round 1), which are compos ed of 56 accounts. Some of these accounts

were removed from Round 2 PSAT analyses for two reasons: based on continuing analysis by

### Page 57

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD the TCEQ on BART eligibility, some of the non-EGU accounts were found to not be BARTeligible as mentioned in the zero-out modeling; a nd 13 sources that were cl assified as potential

BART-eligible sources because th eir VOC emissions exceeded the emissions thresholds and had

to be assessed for VOC impairment at any Class I area discussed above. Once VOCs for all

BART eligible sources screened out all the VOC sources, there were 13 facilities where the

actual SO 2 

### and/or NO X 

### emissions from these sources are typically under 20 tpy. The TCEQ

determined that the emissions from these 13 sour ces were not significant so they removed them

from the PSAT list. The remaining sources from the preliminary Round 1 modeling source

groups 5 through 10 were then divided into 10 source groups for Round 2 screening modeling by

TCEQ using a significance threshold > 250 tpy. Because VOC emissions from all BART sources

were shown to contribute in significantly to visibility.

TCEQ’s Round 2 of PSAT modeling indicated that only BART source Group 1 and Group 5 did

not exceed the 0.5 dv threshold for the key visibi lity metric, as shown in Figure 4-2 (unfilled

triangle); therefore, sources in these two groups may be determ ined to need no further BART

analysis. The other Round 2 BART source groups estimated chan ges in deciview ranging from

0.7-1.2 del-dv, and therefore failed the group scr eening test. The largest visibility impairments

occurred at the Class I areas near northeast Texas (CACR, HEGL, and UPBU), while second

highest visibility impairments were estimated near north Texas (WIMO).

Figure C-6 (EPA App. C Figure 4-2.) Round 2 visibility impacts (del-dv) at Class I areas from potential

BART-eligible non-EGU Source Groups 1 to 10 SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions.

### Page 58

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD As discussed above, u 

### sing the initial methodology of the 98 th 

### percentile and Max Average, the

Round 2 Groups 1 and 5 screened out, and TCEQ and EPA agreed that there were reasonable

arguments for not looking back on the initial wo rk with the tougher threshold of Maximum Max

Average. At the time EPA looked at the source s (and each groups modeled impacts) in each of

the groups that passed and would not pass us ing the Maximum Max Average. Round 2 Group 1

passes with using both metrics, so EPA has no c oncern with the sources in this Group being

screened out of BART analysis. Round 2 Group 5 has a value of approximately 0.75 delta-dv for

the Maximum Max Avg. value, therefore furt her examination of the group is needed to

determine if using the different threshold is tr uly a concern to whethe r the sources of Group 5

would screen out using this alte rnate test approach that was us ed in later analyses. Group 5

included 4 facilities: 1. Huntsman Corporation Port Neches Plant near Beaumont with 951/1902

NO X 

### +SO 2 

### tpy 2002 actual/modeled (approx. 471 km to BRET and 500 km to CACR); 2. Exxon

Chemical Co. Baytown Olefins near Baytown with 1011/2022 NO X 

### +SO 2 

### tpy 2002

actual/modeled (approx. 530 km to CACR); 3. Ph illips Chemical Chevron Chemical near

Houston with 1057/2114 NO X 

### +SO 2 

### tpy 2002 actual/modeled (approx. 520 km to CACR); 4.

Ticona Polymers Bishop Facility sout hwest of Corpus Ch risti with 1134/2268 NO X 

### +SO 2 

### tpy

2002 actual/modeled (564 km to BIBE and appr ox. 900 km to CACR. Given that the three

facilities (Huntsman, Exxon, and Ph illips) are all similarly sized, in the modeling they probably

have approximately the same impact at CACR and BRET and the fourth facility is much further

away so its impacts would be smaller. Th erefore the approximate 0.75 del-dv could be

conservatively split 3 ways for the three facilities and each faci lity likely has Maximum Max

Average impacts on the order of 0.25-0.3 del-dv at most. Therefore refined modeling of each of

the facilities would show that they would scre en out even using the mo re stringent test of

Maximum Max Average that was used in later refi ned screening. The Q/D for all four facilities

in this group to the Closest Cl ass I area to the facili ty are very close with values of 1.91 for

Exxon, 2.02 for Huntsman, 2.03 for Phillips, and 2.01 for Ticona. The closesness of the Q/D

ratio further highlights that imp acts at respective Class I areas of similar distance would have

very similar impacts. We think it is reasonable to determine that the contributions of the three

facilities to the CACR are similar with similar em issions and distances such that a determination

can be made that each of the four facilitie s would screen out if individual source impact

modeling were done with even the Maximum Ma x Avg. impact value. Therefore EPA does not

have a concern with screening out all the sources in Round 2 Group 5 and using the individual

sources for the model plant evaluation.

We have included a Table from the TX RH SIP (Table 9-3), that lists all the BART eligible sources that

were screened out based on the cumulative CAMx m odeling in Table C-5. We note that Sic code ‘49xx’

represents the EGUs.



## C-2 Model Plant Screening Approach

In EPA’s BART Guidelines EPA outlined that states could develop model plants based on

existing modeling that screened out certain facili ties that had similar characteristics. The model

plant approach is basically to use specific m odeling (Model Plant) of a source 50/100 km away

### Page 59

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD from a Class I area and with a pot ential emissions of 500/1000 tpy of SO 2 

### and NO X 

### that results

in an insignificant del-dv (< 0.5 del-dv) and then evaluate other facilities that are further away

and compare their emissions levels and determin e if the other facilitie s can be screened out.



## NO X 

## and SO 2 

## Model Plant Approach and Screening

After conducting the CAMx source group modeling, the TCEQ developed Texas model plants

based on the CAMx modeling results. The model plants are discussed in the addendums to the

CAMx modeling report, Addendum I, BART Exemption Screening Analysis, and Addendum II,

BART Exemption Screening Analysis. Both ad dendums are contained in TX RH SIP Appendix

9-5.

From EPA’s BART Guidelines, a model plant analys is may illustrate that facilities/sources with

certain characteristics do not contribute to visibi lity impairment in the Class I areas. For this

analysis, TCEQ used the modeling results for sour ces that successfully pa ssed the threshold test

in the CAMx modeling and used these Texas Mode l Plants (TMPs) to es tablish distance and

emission rate thresholds that w ould indicate that a source would not have a significant impact on

a given Class I area. Based on the modeling results , BART sources that emit less than a certain

amount per year and are located a certain distance from the nearest Class I area can be exempted.

In carrying out this approach, first TCEQ identif ied the TMPs. In the PSAT screening analysis

for non-EGU sources, 7 potential BART-eligible sources (From SO 2 

### +NO X 

### Round 2 Groups 1

and 5) were shown to not contri bute significantly to visibility impairment and therefore were

declared exempt from BART. These seven sources (l isted in Table C-5) were then used as model

plants to exempt certain other potential BART-eli gible sources that share specific characteristics.

To account for regional factors, potential BART-eligible source s were only compared to the

TMP that shares the same nearest Class I area. BART sources that emit combined SO 2 

### and NO X



### emissions less than the TMPs and are located furthe r from the nearest Class I area than the TMPs

may be declared exempt from BART.

Table C-5. List of TMPs that passed the SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions exemption screening analysis

in the Group runs.

Model

Plant Account Company Site NO

x +

SO 2 (tpy) Closest

Class I

Area Closest

Distance

to Class I

Area (km) Q/D

(tpy

/km)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 BL0002S

JE0052V

BJ0001T

NE0022I

HG0228H

HG0310V

HG0632T AMOCO

CHEMICAL CO

HUNTSMAN

CORPORATION

CHEMICAL LIME

LTD

TICONA

POLYMERS INC

EXXON

CHEMICAL CO

CHEVRON

PHILLIPS

CHEMICAL

ROHM & HAAS

TEXAS CHOCOLATE BAYOU PLN

PORT NECHES PLANT

CHEMICAL LIME—CLIF

BISHOP FACILITY

BAYTOWN OLEFINS PLA

CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO

DEER PARK PLANT 2018

951

1209

1134

1011

1057

1824 BRET

BRET

WIMO

BIBE

CACR

CACR

CACR 587

471

352

564

530

521

534 3.44

2.02

3.43

2.01

1.91

2.03

3.41

### Page 60

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Note: Model Plants 1, 3, and 7 were in Round 2 Group 1 and Model Plants 2, 4, 5, and 6 were in Round 2 Group 5.



### TCEQ initially evaluated all of the potential BART-eligible sour ces in the PSAT Round 1 groups

that have Q/D values higher than the TMPs. N one of the sources from Round 1 passed this TMP

analysis. TCEQ appropriately limited the comparis on of BART-eligible sources with TMPs that

share the same nearest Class I area. Therefore, th e seven TMPs limit the potential analysis to the

BART eligible sources that are closest to Class I areas BIBE, BRET, CACR and WIMO.

Account CY0019H, which is nearest to GUMO, was not compared in this analysis because there

were no model plants for GUMO.

The potential BART-eligible sources that were in the groups that did not pass in the PSAT

Round 2 modeling are grouped by nearest Class I area in Table C-6. Sources in each group were

compared to the TMP that shares the same near est Class I area. If the source passed the two

criteria, of: for a specific TMP, the emissions have to be less than the TMP; and, the source must

be further away from the closest Class I area th an the same TMP that passed the emissions test.

If a facility passes both tests for one of the TMPs, then it may be exempt from BART. For

example, Account NE0120H is closest to BIBE a nd so was compared to the TMP 4 in Table C-5.

The combined SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions of this account (979 TP Y) are less than the emissions

from TMP 4 (1134 TPY) and the source is located further from the nearest Class I area (592 km)

than the TMP 4 (564 km). For these reasons, Ac count NE0120H is exempt from BART using the

TMP criteria. If there are more than one repres entative TMP in a group, potential BART-eligible

sources are only required to pass the criteria of one of the TMPs in that group. For instance,

there are two TMPs representing BRET, TMP 1 and 2, Account JE0042B passed the criteria

(less emissions and greater dist ance) of TMP 2 and therefore can be exempt from BART.

Seventeen (17) sources passed the TMP analysis . Note by using the closest Class I area in

general the sources have similar source-recepto r relationships between the facilities being

evaluated and the TMPs. TCEQ provided several Figures with the sources and model plants in

relation to the respective Class I area to s upport the similar source receptor relationship.

Furthermore, the TMP’s have a mix of low and mi d-height emissions and the facilities that were

screened out have similar enough dispersi on profile in comparison to the TMPs.

### Page 61

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Table C-6. List of potential BART-eligible non- EGU sources included in the NO X 

### and SO 2 

### TMP analysis in TCEQ’s Addendum I.

Nearest

Class I

Area Account Company Site NO

x + SO 2 (tpy) Closest

Distance

from

Class I

Area

(km) TMP Passed Distance

further

from a

Class I

Area

than

TMP km

BIBE AG0024G PUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS

CORP FASHING PLANT 1025 494

4 143

BG0045E CAPITOL CEMENT DIV

CAPITOL PORTLAND CEMENT 1568 482

4 230

CA0011B J.L. DAVIS GAS PROCESSING LULING GAS PLANT 1111 534 4 243

CB0003M ALCOA ALUMINA &

CHEMICALS POINT COMFORT

PLANT 971 654

4 YES 175

CB0028T UNION CARBIDE

CORPORATION SEADRIFT PLANT 464 636

4 YES 149

JB0016M VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC. W RANCH COMP

STA VA 1036 646

4 YES 182

NE0120H KOCH PETROLEUM GROUP

LP CORPUS CHRISTI

EAST 979 592

4 YES 49

NE0122D FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP WEST REFINERY 311 582 4 YES 42

BRET BL0021O BASF CORPORATION FREEPORT SITE 323 607 1 YES 32

2 YES 179

BL0082R THE DOW CHEMICAL CO PLANT B 1897 605 1 YES 33

2 179

GB0001R BP AMOCO CHEMICAL

COMPANY BP AMOCO

CHEMICAL T 818 560 1 31

2 YES 118

GB0073P VALERO REFINING CO

TEXAS TEXAS CITY

REFINERY 901 559 1 33

2 YES 116

JE0039N THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND

RUBBER CO 1141 497

1 127

2 27

JE0042B PREMCOR REFINING GROUP PORT ARTHUR

REFINER 97 472

1 139

2 YES 13

JE0343H BMC HOLDINGS INC BMC HOLDINGS INC 1196 481 1 144

2 11

CACR AC0017B ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED

CORP 28 348 5 182

6 173

7 186

BL0758C CHEVRON PHILLIPS

CHEMICAL SWEENY COMPLEX 370 619 5 YES 105

6 YES 117

7 YES 97

CG0012C ENBRIDGE PIPELINES BRYANS MILL

PLANT 84 140 5 391

6 382

7 395

FG0036G TXI OPERATION LP CLODINE

EXPANDED SH 829 551 5 YES 68

6 YES 78

7 YES 59

### Page 62

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Nearest

Class I

Area Account Company Site NO

x

+

SO 2 (tpy) Closest

Distance

from

Class I

Area

(km) TMP Passed Distance

further

from a

Class I

Area

than

TMP km

HG0229F EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL

CO BAYTOWN

CHEMICAL PL 805 531 5 YES 1

6 YES 13

7 8

HG0558G ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC ATOFINA INC 939 532 5 YES 16

6 YES 26

7 8

HG0562P TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS

LP TX

PETROCHEMICALS

L 336 540 5 YES 24

6 YES 35

7 YES 15

JC0003K WESTVACO 1560 458 5 113

6 101

7 122

MH0009H CELANESE LIMITED 655 649 5 YES 141

6 YES 152

7 YES 132

WIMO ED0051O OWENS CORNING 356 308 3 107

HW0018P PHILLIPS 66 CO BORGER REFINERY 649 263 3 564

JH0025O JOHNS MANVILLE

INTERNATIONALJOHNS

MANVILLE 116 293

3 75

MB0123F LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY LEHIGH PORTLAND

CEM 1107 387

3 YES 42

MM0001T ALCOA INC ALCOA SANDOW

PLANT 1493 488

3 137

WH0014S WICHITA FALLS PLANT 135 97 3 257



### As part of this Addendum TCEQ also addr essed an error in the CAMx PM source group

modeling of Account BG0057U (CPS – Sommer Deely Spruce Po wer Plant). The previous

modeling included the stack diamet er as 1 foot for two units a nd TCEQ had an analysis redone

using the correct diameters (26 ft). The new modeling (using the same doubling of 2002 typical

emissions had a PM Maximum Max Avg. impact of approximately 0.14 del-dv at WIMO and

0.13 at BIBE. Therefore Account #BG0057U still sc reened for PM impacts and because it is an

EGU it was screened out for BART (bas ed on CAIR coverage for BART for NO X 

### and SO 2 

### ).

### Page 63

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD 

## PM Model Plant Approach and Screening

TCEQ also had a second Addendum they devel oped that is being included as Appendix E

(“Addendum II Bart Exemption Screening Analys is – Primary Particulate Plant Methodology:

Texas PM Model Plants (TPMMP)”). In the PM source group analysis, 104 plants screened out.

TCEQ used the results of modeling for these sources to cr ate TPMMPs that could be used for

evaluating a few facilities that were not included in the original analysis.

TCEQ developed EGU TPMMPs and non-EGU TP MMPs and evaluated like source/emissions

against similar model plants (e.g., an EGU woul d only be compared with an EGU, and a nonEGU with a non-EGU). TCEQ developed analysis of these 104 sources based on comparing the

emissions of the model plants, concentrations at Class I areas estimated with CAMx, the old

IMPROVE equation and the effective extinction e fficiency coefficient. They also used a

dispersion principals to come up with a transport coefficient for comparison of different

distances between the model plant and the plant to be tested.

In essence, the test boils down to two tests. Bo th are a scalar test a pproach so the typical 2002

emissions are used in the calculations in stead of the CAMx modeled emissions.

Test One - If the plant being accessed (targe t plant) has a coarse mass component less

than the model plant’s coarse mass (using 0.6 * Coarse Mass typical 2002 emissions),

then fine mass component Q’ F 

### (using the fine mass calculations of the IMPROVE

equation) of the target source (noted by the apostrophe) must be less than Q F 

### of the

model plant (lack of apostrophe denotes model plant from CAMx screening).

Test Two - If the target plant’s coarse mass is greater than the model plant, then the

addition of fine mass and coarse mass for the target plant must be less than the

combination of fine mass and coarse mass components for the model plant.

Q’ F 

### + Q’ C 

### ≤ Q F 

### + Q C



### Overall we have reviewed this methodology and a pprove this analysis for these limited sources

(only two sources that were not modeled otherw ise relied solely on the TPMMP comparison to

screen out).

The two additional facilities th at TCEQ evaluated were Account CI0012D – Texas Genco LP

and Account HW0004D – Agrium.

Table B-1 in Appendix E lists the 104 TPMMPs with Q’ F



### , Q’ C 

### , e, and relevant information

about the date utilized for the TPMMP. Table B-3 in Appendix E compares the calculated

metrics for Account CI0012D with the metrics for a number of model plants. The Account

CI0012D passed for several TPMMPs including TPMMP #10 for impacts at CACR and BRET,

therefore screening out from fu rther BART consideration.

Table B-2 in Appendix E includes screening an alysis for Account HG0659 –Shell Oil Co. that

also screened out with CALPUFF modeling. Eval uating the table indicate s the facility also

screened out when compared to TPMMPs #58 and #73 for impacts at CACR and TPMMP #52,

#58, and #73 for impacts at BRET.

### Page 64

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Table B-4 in Appendix E compares the calculate d metrics for Account HW0004D – Agrium with

the metrics for a number of model plants. Evaluati ng the table indicates the facility screened out

when compared to TPMMP #94 for impacts at WIMO and TPMMP #103 for impacts at SACR.

It passed for some of the other model plants th at Texas evaluated, but th e model plants were not

in the same general alignment as the Ag rium facility to the Class I Area.



## EPA SUMMARY

Using these different modeling approaches, TCEQ was able to screen ou t a large number of the

sources from additional BART consideration. We have reviewed the different techniques as

discussed above and concur with TCEQ’s screening analysis results as discussed above. We have

included a Table that is similar to the Table 9- 3 in the TX RH SIP, that lists all the BART

eligible sources that were screened out ba sed on the cumulative CAMx modeling - Table C-7.

We note that Sic code ‘49xx’ represents the EGUs.

### Page 65

EPA Texas’ BART Analysis TSD Table C-7 (TX RH SIP Table 9-3): BART-Eligible Sources Screened Out Using Cumulative CAMx

Modeling and Model Plant Tests

No. Account Source Regulated Entity SIC

1 TG0044C AEP TEXAS RN101531226 4911

2 CD0013K AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY RN102560687 4911

3 NE0024E AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY RN100642040 4911

4 NE0026A AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY RN100552181 4911

5 JI0030K AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY RN100215557 4911

6 CB0003M ALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALS RN100242577 2819

7 HG0558G ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC RN100209444 2869

8 BL0021O BASF CORPORATION RN100218049 2869

9 GB0001R BP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY RN102536307 2869

10 MH0009H CELANESE LI MITED RN100258060 2869

11 ED0011D CHAPARRAL STEEL MI DLOTHIAN RN100216472 3312

12 BJ0001T CHEMICAL LIME LTD RN100219856 3274

13 BL0758C CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL RN100825249 2869

14 HG0310V CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL RN103919817 2869

15 HW0013C CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL RN102320850 2869

16 BG0057U CITY PUBLIC SERVICE RN100217975 4911

17 BG0186I CITY PUBLIC SERVICE RN100217835 4911

18 CR0020C COPANO PR OCESSING LP RN101271419 1321

19 CI0022A DYNEGY MIDSTREA M SERVICES RN100222900 1321

20 HG0218K EI DUPONT RN100225085 2869

21 EE0029T EL PASO ELECTRIC CO RN100211309 4911

22 TH0004D ELECTRIC UTIL ITY DEPT RN100219872 4911

23 MQ0009F ENTERGY GULF STATES INC RN100226877 4911

24 OC0013O ENTERGY GULF STATES INC RN102513041 4911

25 BL0113I EQUISTAR RN100218601 2869

26 BL0268B EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP RN100237668 2821

27 HG0228H EXXON CHEMICAL CO RN102212925 2869

28 JE0065M EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO RN100211903 2821

29 HG0229F EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO RN102574803 2869

30 NE0120H Flint Hills Resources RN102534138 2911

31 NE0122D FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP RN100235266 2911

32 JE0052V HUNTSMAN CORP ORATION RN100219252 2869

33 JE0135Q HUNTSMAN PETROC HEMICAL RN100217389 2869

34 BL0002S Ineos Olefins & Polymers RN100238708 2869

35 WE0005G LAREDO POWER RN100213909 4911

36 MB0123F LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY RN100218254 3241

37 NE0025C LON C HILL POWER RN100215979 4911

38 BC0015L Lower Colorado River Authority RN102038486 4911

39 FC0018G Lower Colorado River Authority RN100226844 4911

### Page | 66

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD No. Account Source Regulated Entity SIC

40 HG1575W Lyondell Chemical RN100633650 2869

41 HG1451S OXYVINYL SLP RN102518065 2821

42 JE0042B PREMCOR REFINING GROUP RN102584026 2911

43 HG0632T ROHM & HAAS TEXAS RN100223205 2869

44 BL0038U SOLUTIA INC RN100238682 2869

45 GJ0043K SOUTHWESTERN ELEC TRIC POWER RN102156916 4911

46 LN0081B SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE

(FORMERLY XCEL) RN100224765 4911

47 ME0006A SOUTHWESTERN ELEC TRIC POWER RN100542596 4911

48 PG0040T SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE RN100224641 4911

49 PG0041R SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE RN100224849 4911

50 JE0091L SUN MARINE TERMINAL RN100214626 4226

51 WN0042V TARGA RN102552387 1311

52 CI0012D TEXAS GENCO LP RN100825371 4911

53 FG0020V TEXAS GENCO LP RN100888312 4911

54 HG0562P TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LP RN100219526 2869

55 BL0082R THE DOW CHEMICAL CO RN100225945 2869

56 NE0022I TICONA POLYMERS INC RN101625721 2869

57 FI0020W TXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LP RN101198059 4911

58 DB0251U TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY RN 101559854 4911

59 FB0025U TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102285855 4911

60 HQ0012T TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN100664812 4911

61 MB0116C TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102566494 4911

62 MM0023J TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102147881 4911

63 MO0014L TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102285848 4911

64 RL0020K TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102583093 4911

65 TA0352I TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN100693308 4911

66 WC0028Q TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102183969 4911

67 YB0017V TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP RN102563426 4911

68 GB0076J UNION CARBIDE CORP RN100219351 2869

69 CB0028T UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION RN102181526 2869

70 GB0073P VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS RN100238385 2911

71 VC0003D VICTORIA POWER RN100214980 4911

72 JB0016M VINTAGE PETRO LEUM INC RN100214592 1311

### Page | 67

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 

# D. Single Source Analysis

One of the air quality modeling approaches suggested by the EPA in the BART Guidelines is an

individual source attribution approach using CALPU FF or other models such as a photochemical model

(CAMx). Specifically, this entails modeling source-sp ecific BART- eligible units and comparing modeled

impacts to a particular deciview threshold. Fr om discussions with EPA, TCEQ proposed that sources

within 300 km of a Class I area should be screened out using CALPUFF; sour ces beyond 300 km could

be screened out with CALPUFF, or could cond uct a more refined approach with CAMx.



## D-1 CALPUFF Modeling

In this section we will discuss the CALPUFF modeli ng that was conducted in evaluating and screening

BART eligible sources by facilities and by TCEQ.

Initially CENRAP developed a CALPUFF modeling pr otocol to go with the CALMET data that

CENRAP was having developed (Appendix A). TCEQ also developed a CALPUFF modeling protocol,

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subject to BART

in the State of Texas (Appendix D), for further ev aluating and screening which BART eligible sources.

The TCEQ protocol provided the option of a more refi ned modeling analysis if the facility did not screen

out using the potentially more conservative CENR AP modeling databases and protocol. The TCEQ

modeling protocol provided the approach for several facilities without having to have a refined modeling

protocol for each facility. TCEQ included th eir modeling protocol as Appendix 9-7: CALPUFF

Modeling Guidelines in the TX RH SIP. Appendix 9- 7 also contains a summary report from TCEQ for

each modeling demonstration.



## CALPUFF Modeling Using CENRAP with No-OBS CALMET data

A CALPUFF modeling demonstration was conducte d using three years of CENRAP developed

CALMET data.

The CENRAP developed a set of three overl apping CALMET/CALPUFF modeling domains in

the central United States covering the souther n, central and northern po rtion of the CENRAP

region (Fig. D-1). The dimensions of the domain were selected to include the State of interest,

plus Class I areas in nearby states, and to provi de a sufficient buffer between the Class I areas

and the domain boundaries (e.g., 50 km) to assure that CALPUFF’s intermediate calculations,

called “puffs”, are not eliminated that may te mporarily leave the domain and later reemerge

and cause visibility impacts at a Class I area. The operator/owner may elect to restrict the

computational CALPUFF domain to a subset of the CALMET domain to include the facilities

of interest and only areas where si gnificant impacts are feasible, ex tending at least 50 km in all

directions beyond the class I ar eas within 300km of a source.

### Page | 68

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD

Figure D-1. CENRAP CALMET 6km meteorological modeling domains

CENRAP used MM5 meteorology data for the years 2001 2 

### , 2002 3 

### and 2003 4 

### (at 36 km

resolution to create 6-km resolution CALMET

The three-year CALMET dataset was developed under CENRAP contract using only prognostic

modeling data from MM5 (“No Obs” mode). Modeling was conducted for SO 2 

### , NO X 

### , and PM.

Because this was a deviation from the 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W 8.3.1.2.(d) that observations

2 “Annual Application of MM5 for Calendar Year 2001”. McNally, D. E., Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Arvada, CO.

178 pp., 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/2001_36_mm5_summary_final.pdf); “Annual Meteorological

Modeling Protocol: Annual Application of the MM5 to the Continental United States”, McNally, D. E., and T. W.

Tesche, 2002. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/meteor ology/metgridmodeling/an nual_prot_1.1.pdf).

3 “Meteorological modeling protocol: IDNR 2002 annual MM5 application, Johnson, M.T., Iowa Department of

Natural Resources, Air Quality Bureau, Des Moines, IA, 2003; Iowa DNR 2002 Annual MM5 Modeling Project

Johnson, M.T., Presented at the August 11 th 2003 CENRAP Workgroup Meeting in Bloomington, Minnesota, 2003.

(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/adhoc/johnson_2003.pdf)

4 Baker, K., 2005. MM5 Model Performance: Great Lakes Region: 2002-04. Ad-Hoc Meteorological Modelers

Group Meeting , Lakewood, Colorado. 11 June. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/adhoc/baker_2005.pdf); Baker, K.,

M. Johnson, et al. 2005. Meteorol ogical modeling performance summary for application to PM2.5/haze/ozone

modeling projects, Prepared by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium and the Midwest Regional Planning

Organization, Des Plaines, IL

(http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/info/pdf/vchec/BoardBook/attachments/Attachment_8.pdf)

### Page | 69

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD should be included in the meteorological data ge neration with CALMET, it raised into question

the appropriate metric to use. EPA Region 6 and 7 representativ es reviewed the issue with

consultation within EPA’s Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standard s (OAQPS) and decided

the no-obs CALMET data could still be used but the 1 st 

### High or Maximum should be used for

comparing to the 0.5 deciview threshold (or other threshold less than 0.5 d eciview if a state was

using a different value). We al so indicated that if facilitie s did not pass using the No-Obs

CENRAP CALMET data that they could submit a refined CALPUFF mode ling protocol that

would include running CALMET with observa tions included and then the normal 98 th 

### percentile

(H8H) could be used to compare with the deci view threshold for scr eening out from further

BART analysis.

Some facilities were able to just use the CE NRAP CALMET with No-OBS and screen out. In

these cases PM was assumed to be PM2.5 because the applicant did not ha ve particle size or

speciation data available. The modeled source para meters and emission rates have been reviewed

by TCEQ and EPA and are consistent with data in the modeling reports provided by the facility.

CALPUFF and CALPOST model option selections are consistent w ith representations made in

the modeling report and the TC EQ BART Modeling Protocol.

The maximum visibility impacts for all Class I areas evaluated (Class I areas based on TCEQ

CAMx model runs) were less than 0.5 dv for the following facilities:

1. Alcoa, Inc. – Rockdale Operations; A ccount Number: MM-0001-T; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100221472; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600130884; Nearest

City, County: Rockdale, Milam

2. Alon USA, L.P; Account Number: HT-0011-Q; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100250869; Customer Reference Number : CN600881783 ;Nearest City, County:

Big Spring, Howard

3. TOTAL Petrochemicals USA Inc.; Account Nu mber: JE-0005-H; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102457520; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600582399; Nearest

City, County: Port Arthur, Jefferson

4. Cabot Corporation; Account Number: GH-0003-Q; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100221761; Customer Reference Number : CN600124911; Nearest City, County:

Pampa, Gray

5. DCP Midstream Fullerton Gas Plant; Account Number: AB-0012-W; Regulated

Entity Number: RN100218684; Customer Reference Number: CN601229917;

Nearest City, County: Andrews, Andrews

6. Huntsman Polymers Corporation; Account Number: EB-0057-B; Regulated Entity

Number: RN101867554; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600132104; Nearest

City, County: Odessa, Ector

7. Owens Corning Insulating System, LLC; Account Number: ED -0051-O; Regulated

Entity Number: RN100223585; Customer Reference Number: CN600124838;

Nearest City, County: Waxahachie, Ellis

8. ConocoPhillips – Borger Refinery; Account Number: HW-0018-P; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102495884; Customer Refe rence Number: CN601674351; Nearest

City, County: Borger, Hutchinson;

### Page | 70

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 9. Rhodia, Inc. – Houston Plant; Account Number: HG-0697-O; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100220581; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600125330; Nearest

City, County: Houston, Harris

10. Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd.; Account Nu mber: HT-0027-B; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100226026; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600131171; Nearest

City, County: Big Spring, Howard

11. American Electric Power (AEP) - Southwes tern Electric Power Company; Account

Number: TF-0012-D; Regulated En tity Number: RN100213370; Customer

Reference Number: CN600126767; Nearest City , County: Pittsburgh, Titus (NOTE:

Only modeled PM because of CAIR coverage for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### ).

12. Temple-Inland; Account Number: OC-0019-C; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100214428; Customer Reference Number : CN602787053; Nearest City, County:

Orange, Orange

13. Texas Lehigh Cement Company, L.P.; Account Number: HK-0014-M; Regulated

Entity Number: RN102597846; Customer Reference Number: CN600127666;

Nearest City, County: Buda, Hays

14. NRG Texas, L.P. (P.H. Robinson Electri c Generating Station) ; Account Number:

GB-0037-T; Regulated Entity Number : RN101062826; Customer Reference

Number: CN602755415; Nearest City, County: Bacliff, Galveston; (NOTE: Only

modeled PM because of CAIR coverage for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### ).

15. TXU Energy (Monticello Facility); Acc ount Number: TF-0013-B; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102285921; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600135511; Nearest

City, County: Mount Pleasant, Titus; ( NOTE: Only modeled PM because of CAIR

coverage for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### ).

16. MeadWestvaco Texas, L.P.; Account Number: JC-0003-K; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102157609; Customer Refe rence Number: CN601549496; Nearest

City, County: Evadale, Jasper

For Rhodia, Inc. – Houston Plant there were some BART-eligible units not included in the

modeling demonstration. Given th e distance to the nearest Class I area (520 km to CACR), the

relatively small total emission rate (PM10 – 8.64 lb/hr), and the maximum visibility impact (0.24

dv), the applicant contended that th e visibility impacts s hould not be significantly affected by not

having these BART-eligible units included in the modeling demonstration. Given that there is

some headroom in the model values vs. threshol d and that this is based on the maximum value

because of the No-Obs issue, this seems to be a reasonable conclusion.



## CALPUFF Modeling Using Refi ned CALMET with OBS ( pursuant to

TCEQ refined CALPUFF modeling protocol)

The BART exemption modeling de monstration was conducted in two parts for many of the

facilities and some facil ities just conducted the second part (Refined CALPUFF). The first part

consisted of a CALPUFF modeling demonstratio n using three years of CENRAP- developed

CALMET data. The three-year CALMET data set was developed using only prognostic

modeling data from MM5 (“No Obs” mode).

### Page | 71

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD The second part consisted of a refined CALPUFF modeling demons tration using three years of

CALMET data. The three-year CALMET data set was developed using observational

meteorological data along w ith prognostic modeling data from MM5. CALMET model option

selections are consistent with repres entations made in the modeling report.

For both modeling demonstrations, modeling was conducted for SO 2 

### , NO X 

### , and PM. All PM

was assumed to be PM2.5 because the applicant di d not have particle si ze or speciation data

available.

Relevant guidance 5 

### states that the CALPUFF model is gene rally applicable at distances from 50

km to at least 200-300 km downw ind of a source. BART screen ing analyses were performed

with the latest versions of CALMET/CALPUFF. The BART modeling conducted by consultants

and the State extended beyond 300km for many of th e analyses. EPA, FLM representatives and

TCEQ agreed with using CALPUFF for dist ances beyond 300km, and we note that EPA and

FLM representatives have previously allowe d modeling at greater than 300km. Some

information indicates that CALPUFF may yield a more conservative result at these greater

distances. EPA concurred with the use of CALP UFF in the context of conducting these BART

analyses.

According to the EPA BART Guidelines: “The emissions estimates used in the models are

intended to reflect steady-state operating conditions during periods of high capacity

utilization. We do not generally recommend that emissions reflecting periods of start-up,

shutdown, and malfunction be used, as such em ission rates could pr oduce higher than normal

effects than would be typical of most facilities. We recomme nd that States use the 24 hour

average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period

modeled, unless this rate reflects peri ods start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.” 6



### The modeled source parameters and emission rates are consistent with data in the modeling

report. CALPUFF and CALPOST m odel option selections are cons istent with representations

made in the modeling report and th e TCEQ BART Modeling Protocol.

The results from the initial modeling demonstrati on were used to determine the Class I areas to

be considered in the refined modeling demonstra tion (second part). Clas s I areas with maximum

5 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for

Modeling Long-Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility, EPA- 454/R-98-019, IWAQM, 1998;

“Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG)”: Phase I Report, FLAG, USDI –

National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, CO., 2000.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/ Pubs/pdf/flag/FlagFinal.pdf ;. EPA, 2003. “Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality

Models: Adoption of a Preferred Long Range Transport Model and Other Resources”; Final Rule. Fed. Reg./Vol.

68, No. 72/Tuesday April 15, 2003/Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR51.

6 EPA. 2005. “Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Technology (BART) Determinations”.

Fed. Reg./Vol. 70, No. 128/Wed. July 6, 2005, Rules and Regulations, pp. 39104-39172. 40 CFR Part 51, FRL7925-9, RIN AJ31.

### Page | 72

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD visibility impacts greater th an 0.5 dv were considered furt her in the refined modeling

demonstration.

For the refined modeling demonstration, the maximum 98 th 

### percentile visibility impacts for all

Class I areas evaluated (based on in itial model runs) are less than 0.5 dv.

For Celanese Ltd. and Degussa Engineered Carbons L.P. there were some BART-eligible units

not included in the modeling demonstration. Give n that the total emissions from the units

considered in the modeling demonstration make up approximately 98% of the PTE, the applicant

contended that the conclusions based on the vi sibility impacts shoul d not be significantly

affected by not having these BART -eligible units includ ed in the modeling demonstration. Given

that there is some headroom in the model values vs. threshold, this seems to be a reasonable

conclusion.

These facilities did the refined CALMET mode ling so they were allowed to use the 98 th



### percentile of the value instead of the maximum va lue to screen out. The following facilities did

refined CALMET/CALPUFF m odeling and screened out:

1. Celanese Ltd; Account Number: GH-0004-O; Regulated Entity Number:

RN101996395; Customer Reference Number : CN600130850; Nearest City, County:

Pampa, Gray

2. Degussa Engineered Carbons L.P.; Account Number: HW-0008-S; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100209659; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600123988; Nearest

City, County: Borger, Hutchinson

3. Invista S.AR.L; Account Number: VC -0008-Q; Regulated Entity Number:

RN102663671; Customer Reference Number : CN602582231; Nearest City, County:

Victoria, Victoria

4. Equistar Chemicals; Account Number: HG-0033-B; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100542281; Customer Reference Number : CN600124705; Nearest City, County:

Channelview, Harris (0.214 dv CACR and 0.212 dv at WIMO)

5. ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery; Account Number: HG-0232-Q; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102579307; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600123939; Nearest

City, County: Baytown, Harris

6. ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery; Account Nu mber: JE-0067-I; Regulated Entity

Number: RN102450756; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600920748; Nearest

City, County: Beaumont, Jefferson

7. International Paper Co; Account Number: CG-0010-G; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100543115; Customer Reference Number : CN601047830; Nearest City, County:

Queen City, Cass

8. Invista S.AR.L; Account Number: No acc ount number; Regulated Entity Number:

RN104392626; Customer Reference Number : CN602582231; Nearest City, County:

Orange, Orange

9. Ash Grove Texas, L.P.; Account Number: ED-0034-O; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100225978; Customer Reference Number : CN600132161; Nearest City, County:

Midlothian, Ellis

### Page | 73

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 10. Shell Chemical; Account Number: HG-0659-W; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100211879; Customer Reference Number : CN601542012; Nearest City, County:

Deer Park, Harris

11. Eastman Chemical Company; Account Number: HH-0042-M; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100219815; Customer Refe rence Number: CN601214406; Nearest

City, County: Longview, Harrison

12. Sid Richardson Carbon Company; Account Number: HW-0017-R; Regulated Entity

Number: RN100222413; Customer Refe rence Number: CN600131171; Nearest

City, County: Borger, Hutchinson

13. TXI Operations, L.P.; Account Number: ED-0066-B; Regulated Entity Number:

RN100217199; Customer Reference Number : CN600125157; Nearest City, County:

Midlothian, Ellis



## SUMMARY

EPA has reviewed the modeling reports and fi les provided for these 29 modeling efforts.

These17 facilities that screened out using th e CENRAP No-Obs data set and followed the

approved CENRAP protocol, including model set up/flags, post processing procedures, and

accepted versions of the CALPUFF modeling suite at the time. The12 facili ties that screened out

using the refined CALMET data set using the CENSARA MM5 data and incorporating land and

upper air meteorological data. Th ese 12 facilities also followe d the TCEQ refined CALPUFF

protocol and supplemented TCEQ’s protocol with any changes in a source specific modeling

protocol and subsequent modeling report. The modeling protocol and report include details such

as model setup/flags (CALMET and CALPUFF), post processing procedures, versions of the

CALPUFF modeling suite at the time. Overall EP A did not find any issues/concerns with the

modeling evaluations because they followed modeli ng protocols established in consultation with

EPA and FLM representatives. We include Tabl e D-1 below that summarizes the modeling

results and some of the key parameters of the CALPUFF modeling and Table D-1 that

summarizes some of the key CALMET parame ters for the refined modeling sources.

The CALPUFF modeling reports th at were reviewed are in the Docket for this action. The

CALPUFF modeling files are vo luminous and being made available from EPA or TCEQ upon

request.

### Page | 74

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD TABLE D-1 Summary of CALPUFF screening results

Regulated

Entity Account Source SIC CENRAP

or

Refined

Modeling Del-dev Class I Area



### RN100221472 MM0001T ALCOA INC 3334 CENRAP 0.397 CACR



### RN100250869 HT0011Q ALON USA LP 2911 CENRAP 0.272 BIBE



### ASH GROVE (formerly

NORTH TEXAS CENRAP 0.562



### RN100225978 ED0034O CEMENT)** 3241 REFINED 0.469 WIMO



### RN100221761 GH0003Q CABOT CORPORATION 2895 CENRAP 0.447 WIMO



### RN101996395 GH0004O CEL ANESE CHEMICAL 2869 REFINED < 0.5 WIMO



### RN102495884 HW0018P CONOCO PHILLIPS

(formerly PHILLIPS 66

CO) 2911 CENRAP 0.189 WIMO



### DCP (formerly DUKE

ENERGY FIELD

RN100218684 AB0012W SERVICES) 1321 CENRAP 0.407 SACR



### RN100209659 HW0008S DEGUSSA ENGINEERED

CARBONS 2869 REFINED < 0.5 WIMO



### RN100219815 HH0042M EASTMAN CHEMICAL

COMPANY 2869 CENRAP 0.463 WIMO



### RN100542281 HG0033B EQUISTAR CHEMICALS

LP 2869 REFINED .214/.212 CACR/WIMO



### RN102579307 HG0232Q EXXONMOBIL CORP 2911 REFINED 0.395 CACR



### RN102450756 JE0067I EXXONMOBIL OIL

CORP 2911 REFINED 0.49 CACR



### RN101867554 EB0057B HUNTSM AN POLYMERS 2869 CENRAP 0.067 SACR



### RN100543115 CG0010G INTERNATIONAL

PAPER CO 2621 REFINED 0.317 CACR



### RN104392626 OCA002B INVISTA 2869 REFINED 0.319 CACR



### RN102663671 VC0008Q INVISTA (formerly DU

PONT DE NEMOURS) 2869 REFINED 0.228 CACR



### RN101062826 GB0037T NRG TEXAS (formerly

TEXAS GENCO LP) 4911 CENRAP 0.32 WIMO



### RN100223585 ED0051O OWENS CORNING 3296 CENRAP 0.101 WIMO



### RN100220581 HG0697O RHODIA INC 2819 CENRAP 0.24 WIMO



### RN100211879 HG0659W SHELL OIL CO 2911 REFINED 0.106 WIMO

### Page | 75

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD

RN100222413 HW0017R SID RICHARDSON

CARBON 2895 REFINED 0.281 WIMO



### RN100226026 HT0027B SID RICHARDSON

CARBON CO 2895 CENRAP 0.409 BIBE



### RN100213370 TF0012D SOUTHWESTERN

ELECTRIC POWER 4911 CENRAP 0.348 CACR



### RN100214428 OC0019C TEMPLE-INLAND 2621 CENRAP 0.468 CACR



### RN102597846 HK0014M TEXAS LEHIGH

CEMENT CO 3241 CENRAP 0.223 WIMO



### TOTAL

PETROCHEMICALS INC

(formerly

RN102457520 JE0005H ATOFINA

PETROCHEMICALS INC) 2911 CENRAP 0.029 WIMO



### RN100217199 ED0066B TXI OPERATIONS LP 3241 REFINED 0.42 WIMO



### RN102285921 TF0013B TXU GENERATION

COMPANY LP 4911 CENRAP 0.365 CACR



### RN102157609 JC0003K WESTVACO 2631 CENRAP 0.473 WIMO



### ** We note that Ash Grove has received a permit to build a new kiln and retire some of the

existing kilns. Ash Grove is installing controls on the new kiln that will result in a net decrease

in emissions. Based on this information the above estimates can be considered to be an

overestimate of the new Ash Grove facility’s imp acts. We evaluated this new emissions scenario

in our FIP RP analysis and deci ded impacts were small enough that the source did not need to be

further controlled for RP at this time.(See Dock et materials “Midlothian Kiln Reconstruction Prj

Emis rev 4-13-12.xlsx”, “CND-1 Ash Grove Texas LP (amendment).doc”, “TRV – 1 Ash Grove

Texas LP (amendment).doc”, and “MRT – 1 Ash Grove Texas LP (amendment).doc”.

### Page | 76

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 

## D-2 Source Specific CAMx Modeling

TCEQ developed “The CAMx modeling guideline, Guidance for the Application of the CAMx 

### Hybrid

Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas”, as a

standard protocol for refined si ngle facility assessment with CAMx us ing the platform used for earlier

screening modeling. The only major difference in the set-up was using a more recent version of the 2002

Emissions Inventory. These six CAMx runs utilized the Typical 2002 Base F instead of the Typical 2002

Base B Version used in the group CAMx screening anal ysis. The other change was the facility conducting

the evaluation used their short-term lb/hr allowable from either a permit or emission cap instead of the

doubling of 2002 actuals as was done in the group screening modeling. TCEQ included these reports as

Appendices in the RH SIP and we are including the reports in our docket. TX RH SIP Appendix 9-8

contained both the Refined CAMx Modeling Protocol and the modeling summary reports for each modeling

demonstration. TCEQ indicated that ENVIRON main tained the CAMx modeling files for these 6 reports

and the files were available upon request.

We have reviewed the modeling reports for these six facilities and do not have concerns with the

methodology used in the CAMx modeling or the in puts as indicated. These analyses used the Maximum

Max Average impact value to compare against the 0. 5 del-dv threshold. Table 9-6 presents the BARTeligible sources that screened out on an individu al basis using CAMx. These values are summarized for

the Highest impact at any Class I area evaluated (not necessarily the closest). As can be seen in Table D2, all the highest impact values were below 0.5 del-dv . More details and modeling results are available in

the reports, but this information is enough to concur with Texas that these six facilities screened out of a

full BART evaluation.

### Page | 77

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD Table D-2 (TH RH SIP Table 9-6): BART-Eligible Sources Screened Out on Individual Basis Using

CAMx

Reference

Number Reference Number Nearest

Class I

Area Distance

to Nearest

Class I

area (km) Emission Rate

Data Source Highest

Impact

(del-dv) Class I

Area

with

Highest

Impact

RN102535077 BP Products North

American BRET 562 Permit Allowables 0.28 CACR/

UPBU

RN102555166 CITGO Corpus Christi

Refinery BIBE 557 Permit Allowables 0.16 BIBE

RN104150123 Dow Chemical

Company CACR 536 Permit Allowables 0.21 BRET

RN100218130 Houston Refining LP CACR 529 PTE, Permit

Allowables 0.10 UPBU/

CACR

RN100716661 Pasadena Refining

System Inc. CACR 528 Permit Allowables 0.42 CACR

RN100211663 Valero Corpus Christi

East Plant BIBE 554 Facility Wide

Emission Cap 0.11 BIBE/

CACR

### Page | 78

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 

# E. Post-BART Emissions Reductions/Removal of Facilities

Subsequent to the 2002 base year inventory, so me BART-eligible sources reduced their permitted

emissions. Documentation of the emission reduc tions is in TX RH SIP Appendix 9-11: Documentation

of Emission Reductions . The sources and the estimated reductions were also presented in TX RH SIP

Table 9-9 and replicated in Table E-1 below. EPA agrees that the re duction estimates are conservative

because they are from the 2002 actual emissions leve l to a new potential to emit level below the 2002

actuals. Capitol Cement shut down their BART units.

Table E-1 (TX RH SIP Table 9-9): Post-BART Emissions Re ductions at Texas Sources

No. Regulated

Entity Source Account* NO X



### Reduced

from

Baseline

2002

(tpy) SO 2



### Reduced

from

Baseline

2002

(tpy) PM

Reduced

from

Baseline

2002

(tpy)

1 RN100211507 CAPITOL CEMENT DIV BG0045E 1,328 1,193 100

2 RN100227016 DOW HG0126Q 694 0 0

3 RN102450756 EXXONMOBIL OIL*** JE0067I 2.7 290 0

4 RN102609724 NORIT AMERICAS INC HH0019H** 16.6 +5.4 0

5 RN100216621 REGENCY TILDEN GAS

(FORMERLY ENBRIDGE

PIPELINE) MC0002H 2 2,276 0.2

6 RN102551785 TARGA (FORMERLY

DYNEGY MIDSTREAM

SERVICES) CY0019H 336 0.3 0.5

7 RN102561925 THE GOODYEAR TIRE

AND RUBBER CO JE0039N 89.1 +11.3 2.9

8 RN100213685 VALENCE MIDSTREAM

LTD HR0018T 247.1 2,743.5 5.6

9 RN100218601 VETROTEX AMERICA

ST. GOBAIN WH0014S 62.6 16.4 59.0

Total estimated reductions in haze emissions

= 9,485.2 tpy 2,778.1 6,535.9 168.2

*The first two letters in account number are the ab breviation for the source’s county location. See

Appendix 9-11 for the list of county abbreviations.

**Company has permit limiting combined SO 2 and NO X to 841 tpy on previously grandfathered BART

sources. This limit is lower than actual emissions in previous years. For example, the facility emitted

1,266 tpy of NO X and SO 2 in 1990.

***ExxonMobil numbers are preliminary and subject to change. These estimates are based on reductions

from the 2002 EI and pre- and post-BART hourly emissions rates submitted. (Emission reductions as

a result of the completion of permit 49138 (FCCU) will be updated when they become available.)

### Page | 79

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD Sites Removed From Further BART Consideration

The TCEQ BART rule was published January 10, 2007, which included exemption provisions for

being removed/screened out from further BART Consideration. A number of companies requested

removal from further BART consideration per th e exemptions in the rule or based on updated

information on the site. To be removed from the list, a site had to be exempted for all potential haze

causing pollutants, NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , and fine particulate matter. VOC was not required because VOC was

screened out for all the BART e ligible sources in the group CAMx modeling. TCEQ’s BART rule that

a site may be exempted if the combined NO X 

### and SO 2 

### potential to emit are less than 1,000 tp y, and the

site is greater than 100 km from a Class I area. Some sites may be exempted if the combined NO X 

### and

SO 2 

### potential to emit are less than 500 tpy, and the site is greater than 50 km from a Class I area. These

exemption levels are the same as exemptions identified in EPA’s BART Guidelines. Several sites

requested exemption for combined SO X 

### and NO X 

### limits and certified that the TCEQ-sponsored

modeling adequately represented partic ulate emissions. One site requested PM 2.5 exemption due to de

minimis levels of emissions.

Some facilities provided updated site information included construction dates and potential emission

rates of equipment. Two sites re quested removal because the operating equipment did not meet a BART

category.

The results of granted exclusions are also shown in Table E-2 which is based on info in TX RH SIP

Table 9.7: Sites Removed From BART Due to Exemption Requests

.

### Page | 80

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD Table E-2 (TX RH SIP Table 9-7): Sites Removed Fr om BART Due to Exemption Requests

No. Regulated

Entity Company Reason Account SIC

1 RN100220110 ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED

CORP PTE*<1,000,

de minimis PM AC0017B 2621

2 RN102559291 BMC HOLDINGS INC PTE<1,000,

PM certification JE0343H 2869

3 RN100211507 CAPITOL CEMENT Shut down kiln BG0045E 3241

4 RN100227016 CELANESE PTE<250 HG0126Q 2869

5 RN100825249 CHEVRON PHILLIPS

CHEMICAL met TCEQ model

plant BL0758C 2869

6 RN100542711 EI DUPONT DENEMOURS &

CO PTE<1,000,

PM certification OC0007J 2869

7 RN102166964 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES PTE<250 CG0012C 1321

8 RN104579487 INEOS USA PTE<250 GBA007G 2869

9 RN100212018 J.L. DAVIS GAS PROCESSING No BART sources CA0011B 1321

10 RN100213719 JOHNS MANVILLE

INTERNATIONAL PTE<250 JH0025O 3296

11 RN100633650 LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL PTE<1,000,

PM certification HG1575W 2869

12 RN100210608 MARATHON ASHLAND

PETROLEUM PTE<250 GB0055R 2911

13 RN102609724 NORIT AMERICAS INC PTE<1,000,

PM certification HH0019H 2819

14 RN102643327 PUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS

CORP recheck dates,

not BART AG0024G 1321

15 RN100211408 REGENCY GAS SERVICES No BART equip PE0024Q 1321

16 RN100216621 REGENCY TILDEN GAS PTE<1,000,

PM certification MC0002H 2819

17 RN102551785 TARGA Shut down CY0019H 1311

18 RN102561925 THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND

RUBBER CO PTE<250 JE0039N 2822

19 RN100213685 VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD plant shut down HR0018T 1321

20 RN100210517 VALERO MCKEE REFINERY PTE<1,000,

PM certification MR0008T 2911

21 RN100219310 VALERO REFINING TEXAS LP PTE<1,000,

PM certification HG0130C 2911

22 RN100218601 VETROTEX AMERICA ST.

GOBAIN PTE<500,

PM certification WH0014S 3229

### Page | 81

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 

# F. Summary

Overall TCEQ analyzed over 120 facili ties that were potentially BART eligible or needed additional

information to rule out their BART eligibility. EPA has reviewed the different modeling techniques that

TCEQ utilized in evaluating and screening out these sour ces and concurs with the analysis. TCEQ’s analysis

was done in accordance with EPA’s 2005 BART Guide lines, EPA’s modeling Guid elines on Air Quality

Models (40 CFR Part 51 App. W), EPA and IWAQM’s modeling guidance for CA LPUFF and visibility

analysis (several documents) and other pertinen t modeling guidance. CALPUFF modeling was conducted

pursuant to modeling protocols that were shared and reviewed by EPA and Federal Land Manager

representatives and included the initial CENRAP mode ling protocol, TCEQ’s refi ned modeling protocol, and

Source specific modeling protocols. TCEQ and six s ources also performed mode ling analyses with CAMx

based on the TCEQ’s modeling protoc ols (Initial group modeling and Refine d single source protocols {TCEQ

and the 6 different facilities}). There was some co ncern that the initial CA Mx group modeling and Model

Plant source screening may have been based on using the 98 th 

### percentile threshold and that the threshold that

was agreed to in February 2007 of us ing the Maximum Max. Average (High 1 st 

### High vs. 8 th 

### High) for

subsequent analysis with CAMx wo uld cause some concern that earlie r sources may have gotten out of a

BART analysis with the less conserva tive metric initially used. As disc ussed at the time and detailed above,

the sources that screened out were analyzed in groups, and it is reasona ble to believe no one source would

have been above either threshold if refined modeling had been conducted. Subsequent screening using these

sources and the model plant approach are also valid because each source would be below 0.5 del-dv based on

the analysis above. Therefore we c oncur with the sources that were screened out using the model plant

approaches discussed in Section C-2.

We also reviewed the results of the CALPUFF a nd CAMx single-source modeli ng and concur with the

screening of those facilities. We do not think any of the individual sources of NOx, SOx and PM that

screened out would have had a different outcome usi ng a different modeling approach. The final list of all

BART-eligible sources is in A ppendix 9-13: BART-Eligible List.

As discussed in the Federal Register Notice for this proposed rulemaking, we are proposing a FIP to replace

Texas’s reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with re liance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an

alternative to BART for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### emissions from EGUs in the regional haze plan for Texas.

Specifically30 TAC 116.1510(d) states “BAR T-eligible electric generating units participating in the Clean

Air Interstate Rule Trading Program are not su bject to the requirements of Section 116.1520 or

Section116.1530 of this title for NO X 

### and SO 2 

### .” 7 

### We have already issued a limited disapproval of the Texas

regional haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR. However, we determined that CSAPR provides for greater

reasonable progress towards the natio nal goal than would BART and Te xas is included in CSAPR for NO X



### and SO 2 

### . Therefore, our proposed FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on th e trading programs of

CSAPR as an alternative to BART includes a FI P to replace Texas’s reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC

116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR.

7 30 TAC 116.1510(d).

### Page | 82

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD Our proposed regional haze FIP relies on the alrea dy promulgated CSAPR FIP for Texas at 40 CFR 52.2283-

84 to satisfy the BART requirement for SO 2 

### and NOx emissions from EGUs. We more fully explained the

basis for our limited disapproval in that rulemaking and are not taking comment on our limited disapproval of

Texas’ regional haze SIP in this action.

We concur with TCEQ’s conclusion that no Texas s ources remained subject to BART. Based on TX RH SIP

Table 9-8 with some additional information we are pr oviding Table F-1 to summarize the analysis that

supports screening out each facility. Several sources were added to the pr ocess after the BART survey, either

at the site’s request or as a result of recent activity at the site. Their stat us is reflected in this table. Site

activity also included transfer of equipment or corporate reorganizati on resulting in site splits or name

changes.

Therefore, in reference to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C), no five Factor BART determinations are required

because all the BART eligible sour ces in Texas were determined to not emit any air pollutant which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of vi sibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area.

TCEQ included a Table in the TX RH Appendix 9-13 th at gives a tracking of how each facility either

screened out or was dropped from the BART eligible li st. We have made some ed its and replicated it below

to summarize the results of all the different analyses of BART eligible facilities.

### Page | 83

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD Table F

‐ 1 Summary of Screening Analysis for each BART

‐ eligible facility that was evaluated for impacts at Class I

areas and Removed (Screened Out) 1



### Account CompanyBART‐eligible



### Reason for Removal

Cum.

Model

CAMx CAL

‐

PUFF Single

Source

CAMx Exemp

‐ tion

Requested

1 TG0044C AEP TEXAS y y

2 CD0013K AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY

‐ La Palma y y

3 NE0024E AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY

‐ Barney M

Davis y y

4 NE0026A AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY

‐ Nueces

Bay y y

5 JI0030K AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY

‐ W.T.U.

‐ FT.

PHANTOM y y

6 CB0003M ALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALS y y

7 BL0002S INEOS OLEFINS & POLYMERS y y

8 HG0558G ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC y y

9 BL0021O BASF CORPORATION y y

10 GB0001R BP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY y y

11 MH0009H CELANESE LIMITED y y

12 ED0011D CHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN y y

13 BJ0001T CHEMICAL LIME LTD y y

14 HG0310V CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL y y

15 HW0013C CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO y y

16 BG0057U CITY PUBLIC SERVICE

‐ Sommers Deely

Spruce y y

17 BG0186I CITY PUBLIC SERVICE

‐ V.H Brauning y y

### Page | 84

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 18 CR0020C COPANO PROCESSING LP y y

19 CI0022A DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES y y

20 WN0042V TARGA y y

21 HG0218K EI DUPONT y y

22 EE0029T EL PASO ELECTRIC CO y y

23 TH0004D ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPT y y

24 MQ0009F ENTERGY GULF STATES INC

‐ Lewis Creek y y

25 OC0013O ENTERGY GULF STATES INC

– Sabine y y

26 BL0113I EQUISTAR y y

27 BL0268B EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP y y

28 HG0033B EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP y y y

29 HG0228H EXXON CHEMICAL CO y y

30 JE0065M EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO y y

31 HG0229F EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO y y

32 NE0122D FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP y y

33 JE0052V HUNTSMAN CORPORATION y y

34 JE0135Q HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORP y y

35 EB0057B HUNTSMAN POLYMERS y y

36 GBA007G INEOS y

37 NE0120H FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP y y

38 WE0005G LAREDO POWER y y

39 MB0123F LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY y y

40 NE0025C LON C HILL POWER y y

41 BC0015L LOWER COLORADO RIVER Authority

‐ Lower

Colorado River y y

42 FC0018G LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY

‐

Fayette y y

43 HG1575W LYONDELL CITGO REFINING y y y

44 HG1451S OXYVINYLS LP y y

45 JE0042B PREMCOR REFINING GROUP y y

### Page | 85

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 46 HG0632T ROHM & HAAS TEXAS y y

47 BL0038U SOLUTIA INC y y

48 GJ0043K SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER y y

49 ME0006A SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER –Wilkes y y

50 PG0040T SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE –Nichols y y

51 PG0041R SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE

‐

Harrington y y

52 TF0012D SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER

– Welsh y y

53 JE0091L SUN MARINE TERMINAL y y

54 CI0012D TEXAS GENCO LP

‐ Cedar Bayou y y

55 FG0020V TEXAS GENCO LP

‐ W A Parrish y y

56 GB0037T NRG Texas

‐ PH Robinson y y

57 HG0562P TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LP y y

58 BL0082R THE DOW CHEMICAL CO y y

59 NE0022I TICONA POLYMERS INC y y

60 ED0066B TXI OPERATIONS, L.P. y y

61 FI0020W TXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LP y y

62 DB0251U TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY

‐ North Lake

Steam y y

63 FB0025U TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

‐ Valley

Steam y y

64 HQ0012T TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

–

Decordova y y

65 MB0116C TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

–

Tradinghouse y y

66 MM0023J TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

– Sandow y y

67 MO0014L TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

‐ Morgan

Creek y y

68 RL0020K TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

‐ Martin

Lake y y

69 TA0352I TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

‐ Eagle

Mtn. y y

### Page | 86

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 70 WC0028Q TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

‐ Permian

Bsn y y

71 YB0017V TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

– Graham y y

72 TF0013B TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

–

Monticello y y

73 GB0076J UNION CARBIDE CORP y y

74 CB0028T UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION y y

75 GB0073P VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS y y

76 VC0003D VICTORIA POWER y y

77 JB0016M VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC. y y

78 LN0081B SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE y y

79 AC0017B ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP y y

80 MM0001T ALCOA INC y y

81 HT0011Q ALON USA LP y y

82 ED0034O ASH GROVE y y

83 JE0343H BMC HOLDINGS INC y

84 BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA IN

GB0004L TEXAS y y

85 GH0003Q CABOT CORPORATION y y

86 BG0045E CAPITOL CEMENT DIV CAPITOL y y

87 GH0004O CELANESE CHEMICAL y y

88 BL0758C CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL y y

89 NE0027V CITGO REFINING & CHEMICALS y y

90 HW0018P CONOCOPHILLIPS y y

91 AB0012W DCP y y

92 HW0008S DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS y y

93 MR0008T DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING y y

94 HGA005E DOW y y

95 HG0126Q DOW y y

96 HH0042M EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY y y

### Page | 87

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 97 OC0007J EI DUPONT DENEMOURS & CO y y

98 MC0002H ENBRIDGE PIPELINE y

99 CG0012C ENBRIDGE PIPELINES y y

100 HG0232Q EXXONMOBIL CORP

‐ Baytown y y

101 JE0067I EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP

– Beaumont y y

102 CG0010G INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO y y

103 OCA002B INVISTA y y

104 VC0008Q INVISTA y y

105 JH0025O JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL y

106 HG0048L LYONDELL CITGO REFINING y y

107 GB0055R MARATHON ASHLAND

PETROLEUM y y

108 HH0019H NORIT AMERICAS INC y y y

109 ED0051O OWENS CORNING y

110 HG0175D PASADENA REFINING y y

111 AG0024G PUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS CORP y

112 PE0024Q REGENCY GAS SERVICES y

113 HG0697O RHODIA, INC. y y

114 HG0659W SHELL OIL CO y y

115 HW0017R SID RICHARDSON CARBON y y

116 HT0027B SID RICHARDSON CARBON y y

117 CY0019H TARGA y y

118 OC0019C TEMPLE

‐ INLAND y y

119 HK0014M TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO y y

120 JE0039N THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO y y y

121 JE0005H TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS y y

122 HR0018T VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD y y y y

123 NE0043A VALERO REFINING COMPANY y

124 HG0130C VALERO REFINING TEXAS LP y

### Page | 88

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD 125 WH0014S VETROTEX WICHITA FALLS PLANT y y

126 JC0003K WESTVACO y y

1. Some sources were added to the determination process after the BART survey, either by their request or as a result of

equipment transfers. These are indicated with a blank.

### Page | 89

EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSD In the Table below (F-2) there are several footno tes and color coding of facilities that we are

explaining prior to the Table belo w that covers several pages.

The non-highlighted facilities are the facilities that ei ther screened out us ing the group CAMx

modeling results, or via th e Model Plant analyses.

The facilities highlighted in Olive Green are faci lities that screened out based on refined single

source analysis with e ither CALPUFF or CAMx.

The facilities highlighted in Blue are the facili ties/sources that were dropped from the BART

eligible list based either on PTE and PM emissions, shut downs, verification of PTE less than 1000

tpy or 500 tpy, clarifications on sources and applicable dates.

‘*’ = This source was screened out using the gr oup CAMx modeling analysis with certification of

emissions and other modeling parameters by a representative of the source.

‘**’ = This source was removed due to additional information.

‘***’ = For EGU’s, TX did not evaluate NOx and SOx for BART as the fac ilities were applicable

to CAIR requirements at the time that gave BART coverage for these two pollutants.

Table F

‐ 2 Summary of Results for each facility that was evaluated for BART eligibility and source impacts

at Class I areas as needed.Page | 90EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSDAccountCompanyNeeds to doFurther PMAnalyses?Needs to doFurther SOxand NOxAnalyses?Passed UsingModel Plant(NEW12-6-06)CertificationRecievedCompany OkEmissions DataCo. notes anydata changesRegulatedEntityBARTEligible?SICHD0029CA.N.R. PIPELINE COMPANYNONONARN100218510NO**1311TG0044CAEP TEXASNO*NO***1/18/2007yesnoRN101531226YES4911CD0013KAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYNO*NO***1/28/2007yesyesRN102560687YES4911NE0024EAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYNO*NO***1/28/2007yesnoRN100642040YES4911NE0026AAEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANYNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100552181YES4911JI0030KAEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANYNO*NO***1/18/2007yesnoRN100215557YES4911CB0003MALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALSNO*No*X3/5/2007yesyesRN100242577YES2819HG0558GATOFINA CHEMICALS INCNO*No*X2/16/2007yesnoRN100209444YES2869BL0021OBASF CORPORATIONNO*No*X3/5/2007yesyesRN100218049YES2869GB0001RBP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANYNO*No*X5/1/2005yesnoRN102536307YES2869MH0009HCELANESE LIMITEDNO*No*X3/5/2007yesnoRN100258060YES2869ED0011DCHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIANNO*NO*3/1/2007yesyesRN100216472YES3312BJ0001TCHEMICAL LIME LTD (added tocertification)NO*NO*5/3/2007yesnoRN100219856YES3274HG0310VCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICALNO*NO*1/8/2007yesnoRN103919817YES2869HW0013CCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CONO*NO*2/7/2007yesyesRN102320850YES2869BG0057UCITY PUBLIC SERVICENO*NO***2/8/2007yesyesRN100217975YES4911BG0186ICITY PUBLIC SERVICENO*NO***2/8/2007yesyesRN100217835YES4911CR0020CCOPANO PROCESSING LPNO*NO*1/8/2007yesnoRN101271419YES1321CI0022ADYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICESNO*NO*NARN100222900YES1321HG0218KEI DUPONTNO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100225085YES2869EE0029TEL PASO ELECTRIC CONO*NO***3/27/2007yesnoRN100211309YES4911TH0004DELECTRIC UTILITY DEPTNO*NO***1/4/2007yesyesRN100219872YES4911MQ0009FENTERGY GULF STATES INCNO*NO***1/5/2007yesyesRN100226877YES4911OC0013OENTERGY GULF STATES INCNO*NO***1/5/2007yesyesRN102513041YES4911BL0113IEQUISTARNO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100218601YES2869BL0268BEQUISTAR CHEMICALS LPNO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100237668YES2821HG0228HEXXON CHEMICAL CONO*NO*2/5/2007yesyesRN102212925YES2869JE0065MEXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CONO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100211903YES2821HG0229FEXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CONO*No*X3/5/2007yesyesRN102574803YES2869NE0120HFlint Hills ResourcesNO*No*X3/5/2007yesnoRN102534138YES2911NE0122DFLINT HILLS RESOURCES LPNO*No*X2/20/2007yesyesRN100235266YES2911JE0052VHUNTSMAN CORPORATIONNO*NO*3/1/2007yesyesRN100219252YES2869JE0135QHUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPNO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100217389YES2869BL0002SIneos (formerly AMOCO) Olefins &PolymersNO*NO*4/27/2007yesyesRN100238708YES2869GBA007GINEOS (formerly part of GB0001R)NONO5/1/2007PTE<250RN1045794872869WE0005GLAREDO POWERNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100213909YES4911MB0123FLEHIGH CEMENT COMPANYNO*No*X1/12/2007yesnoRN100218254YES3241NE0025CLON C HILL POWERNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100215979YES4911BC0015LLOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITYNO*NO***2/22/2007yesnoRN102038486YES4911FC0018GLOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITYNO*NO***2/22/2007yesnoRN100226844YES4911Page | 91EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSDAccountCompanyNeeds to doFurther PMAnalyses?Needs to doFurther SOxand NOxAnalyses?Passed UsingModel Plant(NEW12-6-06)CertificationRecievedCompany OkEmissions DataCo. notes anydata changesRegulatedEntityBARTEligible?SICHG1575WLyondell Chemical (added to certification)NONOX6/5/2007yesRN100633650YES2869HG1451SOXYVINYLSLPNO*NO*2/26/2007yesyesRN102518065YES2821JE0042BPREMCOR REFINING GROUPNO*No*X3/9/2007yesnoRN102584026YES2911HG0632TROHM & HAAS TEXASNO*NO*1/24/2009yesnoRN100223205YES2869BL0038USOLUTIA INCNO*NO*3/5/2007yesyesRN100238682YES2869GJ0043KSOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWERNO*NO***1/22/2007yesnoRN102156916YES4911ME0006ASOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWERNO*NO***1/18/2007yesnoRN100542596YES4911PG0040TSOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICENO*NO***1/8/2007yesnoRN100224641YES4911PG0041RSOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICENO*NO***1/8/2007yesnoRN100224849YES4911LN0081BSouthwestern Public Service (formerlyXCEL ENERGY)NO*NO***1/8/2007yesnoRN100224765YES4911JE0091LSUN MARINE TERMINALNO*NO*5/4/2007yesnoRN100214626YES4226WN0042VTARGA (formerly Dynegy MidstreamServices)NO*NO*NA <250MMBTU/hrRN102552387YES1311CI0012DTEXAS GENCO LPNO*NO***3/5/2007yesyesRN100825371YES4911FG0020VTEXAS GENCO LPNO*NO***3/5/2007yesyesRN100888312YES4911HG0562PTEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LPNO*No*X3/5/207yesnoRN100219526YES2869BL0082RTHE DOW CHEMICAL CONO*No*X3/5/2007yesyesRN100225945YES2869NE0022ITICONA POLYMERS INCNO*NO*2/12/2007yesyesRN101625721YES2869FG0036GTXI OPERATION LPNO*No*XNAremovednot in the 26source categoriesRN100210996NO**3295NB0037FTXI OPERATIONS, L.P.NONONAremovednot in the 26source categoriesRN100211283NO**3295FI0020WTXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN101198059YES4911DB0251UTXU ELECTRIC COMPANYNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN101559854YES4911FB0025UTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102285855YES4911HQ0012TTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100664812YES4911MB0116CTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102566494YES4911MM0023JTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102147881YES4911MO0014LTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102285848YES4911RL0020KTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102583093YES4911TA0352ITXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100693308YES4911WC0028QTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN102183969YES4911YB0017VTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPNO*NO***2/28/2007yesnoRN102563426YES4911GB0076JUNION CARBIDE CORPNO*NO*5/3/2007yesnoRN100219351YES2869CB0028TUNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONNO*No*X1/10/2007yesnoRN102181526YES2869GB0073PVALERO REFINING CO TEXASNO*No*X3/5/2007yesyesRN100238385YES2911VC0003DVICTORIA POWERNO*NO***2/28/2007yesyesRN100214980YES4911JB0016MVINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC.NO*No*X5/10/2007yesnoRN100214592YES1311Page | 92EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSDAccountCompanyNeeds to doFurther PMAnalyses?Needs to doFurther SOxand NOxAnalyses?Passed UsingModel Plant(NEW12-6-06)ProtocolRecievedModelingReceivedEA ReceivedRegulatedEntityBARTEligible?SICMM0001TALCOA INCNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100221472YES3334HT0011QALON USA LPNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100250869YES2911ED0034OAsh Grove (formerly N TEXAS CEMENT)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100225978YES3241GB0004LBP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INTEXASNO*YESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102535077YES2911GH0003QCABOT CORPORATIONNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100221761YES2895GH0004OCELANESE CHEMICALNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN101996395YES2869NE0027VCITGO REFINING & CHEMICALSNO*YESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102555166YES2911HW0018PConocoPHILLIPS (formerly Phillips 66 CO)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102495884YES2911AB0012WDCP (aka DUKE ENERGY FIELDSERVICES)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100218684YES1321HW0008SDEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONSNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100209659YES2895HGA005EDOWYESYESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN104150123YES2869HH0042MEASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANYNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100219815YES2869HG0033BEQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP (added tomodeling)CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100542281YES2869HG0232QEXXONMOBIL CORP - BaytownNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102579307YES2911JE0067IEXXONMOBIL OIL CORP - BeaumontNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102450756YES2911EB0057BHUNTSMAN POLYMERS (added tomodeling)CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN101867554YES2869CG0010GINTERNATIONAL PAPER COYESYESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100543115YES2621Page | 93EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSDAccountCompanyNeeds to doFurther PMAnalyses?Needs to doFurther SOxand NOxAnalyses?PassedUsingModel Plant(NEW12-6-06)ProtocolRecievedModelingReceivedEA ReceivedRegulatedEntityBARTEligible?SICOCA002BINVISTA (formerly part of DUPONTOC0007J)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN104392626YES2869VC0008QINVISTA Victoria (formerly DU PONT)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102663671YES2869HG0048LLYONDELL CITGO REFINING (akaHouston Refinery)NO*YESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100218130YES2911GB0037TNRG Texas (formerly Texas Genco) add tomodelingCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN101062826YES4911ED0051OOWENS CORNINGNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100223585YES3296HG0175DPasadena Refining Systems (formerlyCrown CentralPetroleum)NO*YESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100716661YES2911HG0697ORHODIA, INC.NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100220581YES2819HG0659WSHELL OIL CONO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100211879YES2911HW0017RSID RICHARDSON CARBONNO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100222413YES2895HT0027BSID RICHARDSON CARBON CONO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100226026YES2895TF0012DSOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER(AEP)YESNO***CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100213370YES4911OC0019CTemple-Inland (added to modeling)CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100214428YESHK0014MTEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CONO*YESrequestedexemption,deniedCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102597846YES3241JE0005HTotal Petrochemicals (formerly ATOFINAPETR.)NO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102457520YES2911ED0066BTXI OPERATIONS, L.P. (added tomodeling)CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100217199YES3241TF0013BTXU GENERATION COMPANY LPYESNO***CalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102285921YES4911Page | 94EPA TX BART ANALYSIS TSDAccountCompanyNeeds to doFurther PMAnalyses?Needs to doFurther SOxand NOxAnalyses?Passed UsingModel Plant(NEW12-6-06)ProtocolRecievedModelingReceivedEA ReceivedRegulatedEntityBARTEligible?SICNE0043AVALERO REFINING COMPANYNO*YESCAMxCAMx, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN100211663YES2911JC0003KWESTVACONO*YESCalpuffCalpuff, passed(threshold<0.5dv)NARN102157609YES2631AC0017BABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORPNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000:demin PMOff listRN100220110YES2621JE0343HBMC HOLDINGS INCNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN102559291YES2869BG0045ECAPITOL CEMENT DIV CAPITOLNO*YESWet kilnpermanent shut downEA submittedRN100211507YES3241HG0126QCELANESENO*YESPTE<250Off listRN100227016no2869BL0758CCHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL (addedto modeling)requestedexemptionMet TCEQ modelPlantOff listRN100825249YES2869OC0007JEI DUPONT DENEMOURS & CONO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN100542711YES2869CG0012CENBRIDGE PIPELINESNO*YESPTE<250Off listRN102166964no1321GBA007GIneos USAnonoPTE<250Off listRN104579487no2869CA0011BJ.L. DAVIS GAS PROCESSINGNO*YESsite recheckedequipmentNo BARTSourcesOff listRN100212018No1321JH0025OJOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONALNO*YESExemptPTE<250Off listRN100213719no3296HG1575WLYONDELL PETROCHEMICALExemptPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN100210608yes2911GB0055RMARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUMNO*YESreq exPTE<250Off listRN100210608no2911HH0019HNORIT AMERICAS INCNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN102609724YES2819AG0024GPUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS CORPNO*YESsite recheckedconstructiondatesoutside applicable datesOff listRN102643327no1321PE0024QREGENCY GAS SERVICES (formerlyDUKE)NO*YESsite recheckedequipmentNo BARTSourcesOff listRN100211408no1321MC0002HRegency Tilden Gas (formerly EnbridgePipeline)NO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN100216621YES2819CY0019HTARGA (formerly Dynegy MidstreamServices)NO*YESshutdown equipexempt-shutdownOff listwith permitRN102551785YES1311JE0039NTHE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CONO*YESPTE<250Off listRN102561925no2822HR0018TVALENCE MIDSTREAM LTDNO*YESplant shutdownshutdownOff listRN100213685YES1321MR0008TValero (formerly DIAMOND SHAMROCKREFINING) McKeeRefineryNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertpermit update;offlistRN100210517YES2911HG0130CVALERO REFINING TEXAS LPNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <1000: PMcertOff listRN100219310YES2911WH0014SVetrotex WICHITA FALLS PLANTNO*YESrequestedexemptionPTE <500: PMcertOff listRN100218601YES3229