KYLE B. BEALL J),TTORf\JEY AT LAW 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Docket Center 

Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 

Mail Code 28221 T 

1200 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

March 31,2016 

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 

628 Not til Boulcv,lrr! 1 

fldlOII ROUCJ0, LA 70802 

tL'i 225-336 ·8450 

bealllaw.net 

FILED VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL 

Comments to EPA re: Recommendation for S02 NAAQS Designation for 

Calcasieu Parish 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

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 of availability 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 ofthe court-ordered designation schedule in correspondence, dated March 20, 2015. In 

its letter, EPA identified three electric power plant sources in two Louisiana parishes (Calcasieu 

and DeSoto) that meet the criteria established in the court's order. The letter further provided a 

designation schedule to comply with the 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 

Calcasieu Parish and DeSoto Parish. In this letter, the LDEQ recommended that Calcasieu Parish 

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, but this report did not include an air modeling analysis for Calcasieu Parish. 

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 S02 NAAQS, and thereby, did not accept the state's recommendation. 

EPA's 120-day letter attached a Technical Support Document, which included a 

Technical Analysis for the Calcasieu Parish Area ("Technical Analysis for Calcasieu"). See, 

Letter from Ron Curry to Gov. John Bel Edwards, dated Feb. 11, 2016, pp. 20-32. As discussed 

in the Technical Analysis for Calcasieu, EPA proposes to designate all of Calcasieu Parish 

(shown on Figure 1 (p. 21) of the above-referenced document) as "unclassifiable" for the 1-hour 

S02NAAQS. 

Specific Comments to EPA 120-Day Letter Related to Calcasieu Parish 

The Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group provides the following specific comments in 

response to EPA's 120-day letter, dated February 11,2016. This industry workgroup believes the 

modeling analysis conducted by Providence Engineering and Environmental Group LLC 

("Providence") on behalf of this 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 behalf of the 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 by the three S02 ambient monitors that are much lower than the 

standard. Based on the totality of information that EPA should consider when making a NAAQS 

designation, Calcasieu Parish should be designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable/ 

attainment" for the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 

March 31, 2016 

Page 3 

In the Technical Analysis 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 

information provided it was not clear if the modeling grid receptors were sufficient to adequately 

capture all the anticipated high-elevated concentrations in the area of analysis." Technical 

Analysis for Calcasieu, p. 23. However, no receptors in the Providence modeling analysis were 

above 170 f..tg/m3 near the edge of the grid. In addition, S02 modeling analyses performed in 

other states that used a larger grid size were accepted by EPA. With respect to statements made 

regarding industrial sources located in Texas, we agree that the state of Texas will be required to 

consider those sources; however, those sources were not required to be included in the modeling 

analysis for this part of Calcasieu Parish. EPA acknowledges on page 24 of its 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 

parameter do not impact the modeling analysis performed by Providence. 

With respect to the "meteorology and surface characteristics" modeling parameter, EPA's 

analysis states that the "use of Baton Rouge surface data instead of Lake Charles data in the 

industry modeling does not follow the guidance in the TAD regarding proximity of the site to 

area under consideration nor does it follow LDEQ's own guidance for modeling in Southwestern 

Louisiana." Technical Analysis for Calcasieu, p. 26. In response to this comment, the Calcasieu 

S02 Stakeholders Group responds that the use of Baton Rouge surface meteorology data is not 

appreciably different than Baton Rouge surface data as to significantly impact the modeling 

analysis performed by Providence. 

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 close proximity of the sources (primarily Entergy and 

Sasol) to the Westlake monitor, 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" of those 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 estimated background concentration and use of 

a "90 degree arc" is the appropriate and accepted mechanism to do so for this area. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 

March 31, 2016 

Page4 

Regarding EPA's comments concerning the correction to standard conditions on page 29 

of the technical analysis, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group notes that this conversion has 

not been required in dozens of modeling analyses in the state of Louisiana, which have been 

accepted by EPA Region 6 and LDEQ in the past. Regardless, we do not believe the proposed 

conversion justifies a modification to the NAAQS designation for this area based on the totality 

of information that 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 if a final designation of "unclassifiable" is made by 

EPA by July 2, 2016. 

2. EPA failed to consider other valid S02 ambient air monitors located in Calcasieu Parish 

in its Technical Analysis for Calcasieu. Full consideration of this data supports a final 

designation of "attainment" for this area. At a minimum, the data supports a designation 

of "unclassifiable/attainment" for Calcasieu Parish. 

In the Technical Analysis for Calcasieu attached to its 120-day letter, EPA only evaluated 

the Westlake S02 monitor for the area in proximity to the Nelson and NISCO facilities. EPA also 

made several conclusory remarks concerning the use of that monitoring data. Specifically, EPA 

stated that because "this monitor is approximately 2.5 km to the South and East of the Nelson 

facilities" it is "not representative of the maximum from Nelson facilities and other cumulative 

sources." See, Technical Analysis for Calcasieu, p. 21. EPA further concluded, "Therefore, there 

is no monitoring data that is representative of the maximum or higher elevated levels of SOz 

around the Nelson 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% of all SOz 

emissions (permitted or actual) in Calcasieu Parish. 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 of S02 in the form of the standard, the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of the annual distributions of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations 

(Design Value, DV) is also declining. In fact, all three monitors are in compliance 

with the 2010 S02 NAAQS, see figure 4. Data from the most recent monitoring 

period indicates DVs of 33, 30, and 50 ppb for the Westlake Monitor, the LAIA 

North Monitor, and the LAIA South Monitor, respectively. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 

March 31, 2016 

Page 5 

Letter from Peggy Hatch to Ron Curry, dated Sep. 18, 2015, attaching LDEQ Recommendations 

for Sulfur Dioxide Area Designations, Calcasieu Parish Support Document, p. 3. As shown on 

Figure 3 of the 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 of the Nelson and NISCO facilities and near other industrial facilities that were included in 

Providence's modeling analysis. There is also an apparent contradiction in EPA's Technical 

Analysis for Calcasieu in its later discussion on acceptable background concentration. On page 

28 of its analysis, EPA discusses the "close proximity of the sources (primarily Entergy and 

Sasol) to the Westlake monitor." Yet this is the same monitor that EPA references as being "not 

representative of the 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 of the 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 Analysis for Calcasieu. Finally, EPA should consider all 

three monitors in Calcasieu when 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 by July 2, 2016. It is wholly inequitable to 

require Calcasieu Parish to meet either January 2017 EPA deadline (which also mandates 

a state deadline of July 1, 20 16) if EPA makes a final designation of "unclassifiable" for 

this area. 

With respect to NAAQS, the federal Clean Air Act defines "unclassifiable" to mean "any 

area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not 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 

S02 NAAQS is currently being 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 by July 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 or monitoring). This 

should be obvious from the state deadline of July 1, 2016 set forth in the final Data Requirements 

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 and require the LDEQ to make a 

recommendation of modeling or monitoring for the same area by July 1, 2016. This incongruity 

leads to a conclusion that areas with final designations of July 2, 2016 are not required to comply 
Docket ID 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" by EPA. 

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" by July 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" by July 2, 2016. EPA clearly will have satisfied the court-ordered 

deadline for Calcasieu Parish if a final designation is made by this date. We ask that EPA 

confirm this interpretation in its response to comments. 

Summary 

For the reasons discussed in these comments, the Calcasieu S02 Stakeholders Group 

requests that EPA accept the LDEQ's recommendation of"attainment" for Calcasieu Parish with 

respect to the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. The air modeling conducted by Providence 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 of Louisiana to 

comply with the July 1, 2016 deadline for this area if a final designation of "unclassifiable" is 

made by EPA. Instead, EPA should allow additional time to review the existing modeling and 

monitoring data for Calcasieu Parish. 

We appreciate your review of these comments and look forward to EPA's written 

response. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (225)336-8450 or kyle@bea111aw.net. 

Sincerely, 

K~~c!\ Kyle Beall 

cc: Mark Hansen, U.S. EPA Region 6 

Tegan Treadaway, LDEQ Air Permits Division 

Vivian Aucoin, LDEQ 

Kevin Calhoun, Providence