## KYLE 

## B. BEALL

J),TTORf\JEY AT LAW

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency EPA DocketCenter Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 Mail Code 28221T 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 March 31,2016

RE: DocketID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 628 Nottil Boulcv,lrr! 1 fldlOII ROUCJ0, LA 70802 tL'i 225-336 ·8450

bealllaw.net

FILED VIAU.S. MAILAND EMAIL

Commentsto EPAre: Recommendation for S02NAAQS Designation for CalcasieuParish
Dear SirorMadam:
These comments are submitted by the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group, an industry workgroup with facilities located within Calcasieu Parish, and relate to the above-referenced docket. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that Calcasieu Parish should be designated as "attainment," or at a minimum, "unclassifiable/attainment" for the 1-hour sulfur dioxide ("S02") national ambient air quality standard ("NAAQS"). Alternatively, EPA should provide more flexibility with respect to deadlines for future air quality analysis for Calcasieu Parish if EPA makes a final determination of''unclassifiable" for this area. Specifically, this area should not be required to meet the 2017 deadlines because a final designation will be made by July 2, 2016. Background
On March 1, 2016, EPA published a "notice ofavailability and public comment period" in the Federal Register for certain state designation recommendations for the 2010 1-hour S02 NAAQS. See, 81 Fed. Reg. 10,563. This notice relates to a second round of S02 NAAQS designations for certain areas of the country as required by a consent decree that included a court-ordered designation schedule. Sierra Club v. McCarthy, No. 3-13-cv-3953 (SI) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015). In response to the above-referenced consent decree, EPA notified the state of Louisiana ofthecourt-ordered designation schedulein correspondence, dated March 20, 2015. In its letter, EPA identified three electric powerplant sources in two Louisiana parishes (Calcasieu and DeSoto) that meet the criteria established in the court's order. The letter further provided a designation scheduleto complywiththe court-ordered deadline.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 March 31, 2016 Page2

In response to EPA's notice letter, the LDEQ submitted a report to EPA Region 6 on September 18, 2015 that provided recommendations for designation of the S02 NAAQS for CalcasieuParish and DeSoto Parish. Inthis letter, the LDEQ recommended that CalcasieuParish be designated as "attainment" for the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group submitted an air modeling analysis to the LDEQ and EPA in correspondence, dated September 17, 2015. The Sierra Club also provided comments to the LDEQ on September 18, 2015, butthis reportdidnot include an airmodeling analysis for CalcasieuParish.
In response to LDEQ's recommendation, EPA Region 6 provided a notification to the state of Louisiana of its intended modifications to the state's proposed recommendations in correspondence, dated February 11, 2016 (also known as the "120-day letter"). With respect to Calcasieu Parish, EPA notified the state that it intended to designate the entire parish as "unclassifiable" for the S02NAAQS, and thereby, did not accept the state'srecommendation. EPA's 120-day letter attached a Technical Support Document, which included a Technical Analysisfor the Calcasieu Parish Area ("Technical Analysisfor Calcasieu"). See, Letter from Ron Curryto Gov. John Bel Edwards, dated Feb. 11, 2016, pp. 20-32. As discussed in the Technical Analysisfor Calcasieu, EPA proposes to designate all of Calcasieu Parish (shown on Figure 1 (p. 21) ofthe above-referenced document) as "unclassifiable" for the 1-hour S02NAAQS. Specific Comments to EPA 120-DayLetter Related to Calcasieu Parish The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group provides the following specific comments in responseto EPA's 120-dayletter, dated February 11,2016. This industryworkgroupbelievesthe modeling analysis conducted by Providence Engineering and Environmental Group LLC ("Providence") on behalf ofthis group justifies the "attainment" designation proposed by the LDEQ in its recommendation document, dated September 18, 2015. The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group requests that EPA provide a detailed, written response to each of the following comments.
1. The air modeling analysis conducted on behalfofthe Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group demonstrates that Calcasieu Parish should be designated as "attainment" for the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. At a mmtmum, the data supports a designation of ''unclassifiable/attainment" for this area. The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group asserts that sufficient modeling data exists to designate all of Calcasieu Parish as "attainment" with the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. Any alleged errors or discrepancies with the modeling analysis are minor and should not alter the recommendation by the LDEQ. As discussed in Comment 2 of this correspondence, this conclusion is further supported bythe three S02ambient monitors that are much lower than the standard. Based onthe totalityofinformationthat EPA should considerwhenmaking a NAAQS designation, Calcasieu Parish should be designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable/ attainment" for the 1-hour S02NAAQS.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 March 31, 2016 Page 3

In the TechnicalAnalysis for Calcasieu attached to its 120-day letter, EPA made several comments to the modeling analysis conducted on behalf of the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group and accepted by the LDEQ. As discussed below, we believe these comments do not justify EPA's proposed modification to the NAAQS designation from "attainment" to "unclassifiable" for this area. Responses to EPA's evaluation are set forth below. With respect to the "area of analysis" modeling parameter, EPA stated: "From the informationprovided it was not clearifthemodeling gridreceptors were sufficientto adequately capture all the anticipated high-elevated concentrations in the area of analysis." Technical Analysisfor Calcasieu, p. 23. However, no receptors in the Providence modeling analysis were above 170 f..tg/m3 near the edge ofthe grid. In addition, S02modeling analyses performed in other states that used a larger grid size were accepted byEPA. With respect to statements made regarding industrial sources located in Texas, we agree that the state ofTexas will berequired to considerthose sources; however, those sources were notrequired to be included in the modeling analysis for this part ofCalcasieu Parish. EPA acknowledges on page 24 ofits analysis that the "two Texas sources would not be expected to cause a concentration gradient in the industry modeling grid for Lake Charles area
..." EPA's comments related to the area of analysis parameterdo notimpact the modeling analysis performedbyProvidence.
Withrespect to the "meteorologyand surface characteristics" modelingparameter, EPA's analysis states that the "use ofBaton Rouge surface data instead ofLake Charles data in the industry modeling does not follow the guidance in the TAD regarding proximity ofthe site to area under consideration nor does it follow LDEQ's own guidance for modeling in Southwestern Louisiana." TechnicalAnalysis for Calcasieu, p. 26. In response to this comment, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group responds that the use ofBaton Rouge surface meteorology data is not appreciably different than Baton Rouge surface data as to significantly impact the modeling analysis performedbyProvidence.
The background concentration proposed in the Providence analysis and accepted by the LDEQ should also be accepted by EPA in the final designation for Calcasieu Parish. In its technical analysis, EPA stated: "Given the closeproximityofthe sources (primarily Entergy and Sasol) to the Westlakemonitor, we have concerns that more data was excluded than should have been by using the 90 degree arc." 

### Id., p. 28. The Providence modeling analysis applied a conservative and acceptable approach to remove impacts from the modeled S02 sources, which would have resulted in "double counting" ofthose impacts. We believe the "90 degree arc" is appropriate for this heavily-industrial area and there is no indication that data was invalidly removed from the proposed background concentration. The Providence modeling analysis included over 99.5% of all S02 emissions (permitted or actual) in Calcasieu Parish. Thus, it makes sense to exclude those emissions from the estimatedbackground concentration and use of a "90 degree arc" is the appropriate and accepted mechanism to do so for this area.DocketID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 March 31, 2016 Page4

Regarding EPA's comments concerning the correction to standard conditions onpage 29 ofthe technical analysis, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group notes that this conversion has not been required in dozens ofmodeling analyses in the state ofLouisiana, which have been accepted by EPA Region 6 and LDEQ in the past. Regardless, we do not believe the proposed conversionjustifies a modification to the NAAQS designation for this area based on the totality ofinformationthat support an "attainment" or''unclassifiable/attainment" designation. With respect to the "emissions" modeling parameter, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group acknowledges that continuous emissions monitoring systems ("CEMS") data was not used for the Nelson or NISCO facilities. However, this modeling analysis was conducted to support the state's designation efforts in a compressed time frame. Future modeling may be conducted based on CEMS data, where available. As discussed further in Comment 3 below, more time should be provided for this area ifa final designation of"unclassifiable" is made by EPAbyJuly2, 2016.
2. EPA failed to consider other valid S02 ambient air monitors located in Calcasieu Parish in its Technical Analysis for Calcasieu. Full consideration ofthis data supports a final designation of"attainment" for this area. At a minimum, the data supports a designation of"unclassifiable/attainment" for CalcasieuParish.
In the TechnicalAnalysis for Calcasieu attached to its 120-dayletter, EPA onlyevaluated the Westlake S02 monitorfor the areainproximityto the Nelson andNISCO facilities. EPA also made several conclusory remarks concerning the use ofthat monitoring data. Specifically, EPA stated that because "this monitor is approximately 2.5 km to the South and East ofthe Nelson facilities" it is "not representative ofthe maximum from Nelson facilities and other cumulative sources." See, TechnicalAnalysis for Calcasieu, p. 21. EPA further concluded, "Therefore, there is no monitoring data that is representative ofthe maximum or higher elevated levels of SOz around theNelson facilities." Id., p. 22. These statements are not accurate. In its recommendation document, dated September 18, 2015, the LDEQ considered three ambient air monitors located near the industrial facilities that comprise over 99.5% ofall SOz emissions (permitted oractual) in CalcasieuParish. Specifically, the LDEQ stated: As previously discussed, LDEQ operates one SLAMS monitor in Calcasieu Parish. In addition to the Westlake Monitor, the Lake Area Industry Alliance (LAIA) operates two S02 monitors: the LAIA North Site/Mossville monitor (LAIA North Monitor); and the LAIA South Site/Bayou D'Inde monitor (LAIA South Monitor), see figure 3. Based on data from the three monitors, the concentration ofS02 in the form ofthe standard, the 3-year average ofthe 99th percentile ofthe annual distributions of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations (Design Value, DV) is also declining. In fact, all threemonitors are incompliance with the 2010 S02 NAAQS, seefigure 4. Data from the most recent monitoring period indicates DVs of33, 30, and 50 ppb for the Westlake Monitor, the LAIA NorthMonitor, and the LAIA SouthMonitor, respectively.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 March 31, 2016 Page 5

Letter from PeggyHatch to Ron Curry, dated Sep. 18, 2015, attachingLDEQRecommendations for Sulfur DioxideArea Designations, Calcasieu Parish Support Document, p. 3. As shown on Figure 3 ofthe above-referenced LDEQ document, the LAIA North monitor is located in close proximity to the R.S. Nelson Generating Plant and NISCO. The LAIA South monitor is located south ofthe Nelson and NISCO facilities and nearotherindustrial facilities that were included in Providence's modeling analysis. There is also an apparent contradiction in EPA's Technical Analysisfor Calcasieu in its later discussion on acceptable background concentration. On page 28 ofits analysis, EPA discusses the "close proximity ofthe sources (primarily Entergy and Sasol) to the Westlake monitor." Yet this is the same monitor that EPA references as being "not representative ofthe maximum from Nelson facilities and other cumulative sources" on page 21 ofthe same analysis.
We request that EPA provide a basis for its unsupported statement that the Westlake air monitor is not representative ofthe facilities included in the Providence modeling analysis that comprises all major S02 emitters in Calcasieu Parish. EPA should also explain why the two LAIA monitors that have collected valid (QA/QC) monitoring data for over three years were not considered by EPA in the Technical Analysisfor Calcasieu. Finally, EPA should consider all three monitors in Calcasieuwhen evaluating a final S02 designation for this parish.

3. EPA should allow more time to evaluate the available modeling and monitoring data after a final designation is made for this area byJuly 2, 2016. Itis wholly inequitable to require Calcasieu Parish to meet eitherJanuary 2017 EPA deadline (which also mandates a state deadline ofJuly 1, 2016) ifEPA makes a final designation of"unclassifiable" for this area. Withrespect to NAAQS, the federal Clean Air Act defines "unclassifiable" to mean "any area that cannotbe classified on the basis ofavailable information as meeting ornot meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant." See, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(l). With respect to Calcasieu Parish, EPA has been presented with enough data to designate Calcasieu Parish as "attainment" or "unclassifiable/attainment." Specifically, enough data exists through modeling and existing monitoring to affirmatively conclude that the 1-hour S02NAAQS is currentlybeing satisfied and has been satisfied for at least three years. Although certain designation deadlines are mandated by the federal consent decree, we do not believe that areas required to have a final designation byJuly 2, 2016 are also required to comply with the subsequent deadlines in January 2017 for other areas (which requires states to inform EPA whether it intends to characterize such areas through modeling ormonitoring). This shouldbe obvious from the state deadline ofJuly 1, 2016 set forth inthe final DataRequirements Rule. See, 80 Fed. Reg. 51,064. The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group questions the legality of EPA to make a final designation for this area by July 2, 2016 andrequire the LDEQ to make a recommendation ofmodeling or monitoring for the same area byJuly 1, 2016. This incongruity leads to a conclusionthat areas with final designations ofJuly2, 2016 are notrequired to complyDocketID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 March 31,2016 Page6

with the deadlines for the 2017 designation schedule, even if those areas are designated as "unclassifiable"byEPA.
This group understands that additional modeling and/or monitoring may be required in the future to make a designation of "attainment" or "nonattainment," but more time should be provided for areas designated as ''unclassifiable" byJuly 2, 2016. Nothing in the federal Clean Air Act or the final Data Requirements Rule prevents EPA from providing more time for areas designated as "unclassifiable"byJuly 2, 2016. EPA clearlywill have satisfied the court-ordered deadline for Calcasieu Parish if a final designation is made by this date. We ask that EPA confirmthis interpretationinitsresponseto comments. Summary
For the reasons discussed in these comments, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group requests that EPA accept the LDEQ'srecommendation of"attainment" for CalcasieuParish with respect to the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. The airmodeling conductedbyProvidence demonstrates that this geographic area is meeting the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. This conclusion is supported by ambient monitoring data from three air monitoring stations located throughout the parish and near the modeled industrial sources. Finally, EPA should not require the state ofLouisiana to comply with the July 1, 2016 deadline for this area ifa final designation of"unclassifiable" is made by EPA. Instead, EPA should allow additional time to review the existing modeling and monitoringdata for CalcasieuParish.
We appreciate your review of these comments and look forward to EPA's written response. Ifyouhave anyquestions, I canbereached at (225)336-8450 orkyle@bea111aw.net. Sincerely,



# K~~c!\

Kyle Beall

cc: MarkHansen, U.S. EPARegion 6 TeganTreadaway, LDEQ AirPermitsDivision VivianAucoin, LDEQ Kevin Calhoun, Providence